The High Court has significantly reduced the scope of the doctrine of quantum meruit in so far as it applies to work undertaken pursuant a contract which has been discharged. In such a case, quantum meruit is only available for completed work but for which a contract entitlement has not crystallised at discharge.
Tagged: High Court
The High Court unanimously held that the builder of strata-titled apartments did not owe an owners corporation a duty of care to avoid pure economic loss caused by latent defects in common property.
Is redemption of certain interests in a managed investment scheme “withdrawal” from the scheme for the purposes of Part 5C.6 of the Corporations Act 2001?
The High Court has held that redemption of units in a managed investment scheme did not constitute “withdrawal” within the meaning of Part 5C.6 of the Corporations Act 2001.
The HCA disallowed a joint venturer’s claim to have derived a lump sum as constructive trustee. Alleged fiduciary duties owed to a non-venturer were not accepted. Alternatively, the venturer’s purported equitable assignment of his rights to the lump sum was not tax-effective.
In a unanimous judgment, the High Court has held that the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995(NSW) (the Act) empowers the Registrars to register a person’s sex as “non-specific”.
In Australian Electoral Commission v Johnston  HCA 5, the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, answered questions of law in a way which led to the election of WA Senators to the Commonwealth Parliament being declared void.
The recent High Court decision in Sidhu v Van Dyke  HCA 19 (16 May 2014) has clarified some key issues in relation to the law of equitable estoppel, specifically in relation to reliance and remedy.
On 7 May 2014, the High Court unanimously held that Hills Industries Ltd (Hills) and Bosch Security Systems Pty Ltd (Bosch) established the defence of change of position. Hills and Bosch were not required to repay monies to Australian Financial Services and Leasing Pty Limited (“AFSL”), the party who had paid them monies as a result of a third party’s fraud. AFSL appealed from the decision of the NSW Supreme Court of Appeal. The appeal was unanimously dismissed.
The High Court, by majority, upheld the validity of a statutory scheme for the forfeiture of property. The scheme provided that, on application by the DPP, the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory could declare a person who had been convicted of three or more drug related offences within a ten year period to be a “drug trafficker”, and consequent upon the declaration, all property owned, effectively controlled or given away by that person was forfeited to the Northern Territory.
The High Court held unanimously that a liquidator is entitled to an equitable lien over settlement monies for litigation expenses which the liquidator incurred for the purpose of impugning a secured creditor’s charge, applying and confirming the principle in Universal Distributing in the process.
High Court strikes down laws prohibiting donations to political parties and spending on election campaigns
The High Court held invalid recent changes to the NSW political donations and campaign expenditure laws. The laws would have prohibited donations to political parties by any person not on the electoral roll, and where an overall cap on campaign spending by political parties otherwise applied, would have deemed expenditure on a campaign by ‘affiliated organisations’ of a political party (eg, unions) as being expenditure by that political party.
High Court Holds ACT Same Sex Marriage Law Is Inconsistent with Federal Marriage Law and of No Effect
Eugenia Levine – The Commonwealth of Australia v The Australian Capital Territory
The High Court explained the standard of reasons required where a Medical Panel gives its opinion on a medical question referred to it.
In Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd & Ors v Armstrong Strategic Management & Marketing Pty Ltd & Ors  HCA 46 the High Court has confirmed that accidental disclosure of documents over which legal professional privilege is claimed will not amount to a waiver of such privilege. The appropriate course, in accordance with good practice management, will normally be for the recipient of the documents to return them to the solicitor of the party claiming privilege, and for that party to seek leave to amend its List of Documents. Failing to take such a pragmatic approach and raising technical legal points may in the circumstances be a breach of a party’s and its legal representatives’ obligations under the NSW Civil Procedure Act (and, it follows, the Victorian Civil Procedure Act).