Wednesday, August 31, 2011

The evolution of discovery - Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd & Ors [2011] VSC 401

The matter of Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd & Ors [2011] VSC 401 was a hearing before Zammit AsJ in the Supreme Court of Victoria concerning discovery. I have referred to the case below because of the handy summary of the evolution of the procedures and tests for discovery. The matter itself is a class action against a power company SPI in respect of the Kilmore East-Kinglake bushfire on 7 February 2009.

The extract and a brief discussion is set out below.

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

iPad software review for lawyers - Goodreader

I find that my iPad 2 is an invaluable tool for my legal practice. I use it in Court, mediations and conferences to take notes, draft documents and research legislation, cases and commentary. I got most of my tips on how to set it up from Kyle McDonald, another blawging barrister. His site Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is full of reviews and tips on how to set up an iPad.

I thought I'd have a go at giving a review of Goodreader which is an app that I find to be very valuable for my practice. The review is set out below.

Friday, August 26, 2011

Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21 - expert reports

The matter of Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21 (Dasreef v Hawchar) was an appeal to the High Court in respect of a ruling to admit an expert's report under s79 of the Uniform Evidence Act (the NSW version). The matter is interesting because of the High Court's discussion of the matters which must be demonstrated for expert opinion evidence to be admissible under s79.

I have included a case summary and discussion below.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Total failure of consideration - JD No 6 (Dava) Pty Ltd v P Battlay Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] VSC 353

The matter of JD No 6 (Dava) Pty Ltd & Anor v P Battlay Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor [2011] VSC 353 (JD No 6 v P Battlay Holdings) was a trial before Croft J in the Supreme Court of Victoria which concerned an option agreement for a contract of sale of land. The option was exercisable by the payment of $400,000 to the first defendant, which was to be applied to the deposit for the purchase of land under the contract of sale of land. 

Pursuant to the option agreement the first plaintiff paid $400,000 to exercise the option. Subsequent to the exercise of the option, the first defendant failed to perform its obligations, by reason of the impossibility of performance, and the first defendant resisted repaying the amount of $400,000 to the first plaintiff. The Supreme Court of Victoria ordered repayment on the basis that there was total failure of consideration (at [53]).

I have included a case summary and extracts concerning the principles of total failure of consideration below.

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Redaction principles reviewed in Octagon Inc v Hewitt & Anor (No 2) [2011] VSC 373

The matter of Octagon Inc v Hewitt & Anor (No 2) [2011] VSC 373 was a hearing before Dixon J in the Supreme Court of Victoria concerning adequacy of inspection of discovered documents that were redacted. It is a useful case because of the summary of the principles concerning redacted documents in discovery. For my readers' information, redaction is the act of blanking out part of a document because that part of the document is claimed to be irrelevant, privileged and/or confidential.

I have included a case summary and extract concerning redaction below.

Monday, August 1, 2011

Mitre 10 v Masters [2011] VSC 343 - protecting secondary branding

The matter of Mitre 10 Australia Pty Ltd v Masters Home Improvement Australia Pty Ltd [2011] VSC 343 (Mitre 10 v Masters) was an application by Mitre 10 for an injunction in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Mitre 10 was seeking to restrain a newcomer to the home improvement market, Masters, from using a particular colour scheme for the Masters store branding. By the time the application was made by Mitre 10, Masters had not commenced trading. Masters is a joint venture between Woolworths Ltd and a US company, Lowe's.

I have included a discussion of this case below.