Friday, September 30, 2011

Anderson & Ors v Xie [2011] VSC 486

The matter of Anderson & Ors v Xie [2011] VSC 486 was a freezing order application before Dixon J in the Supreme Court of Victoria. This matter is an example of a freezing order obtained in circumstances where there is delay, after judgment, in having costs taxed. Here the plaintiff sought to freeze the defendant's assets to prevent the defendant from dissipating her assets to thwart the judgment.

I have included a brief summary and extracts below.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Grand final scalping injunction

In my haste to get into chambers this morning, I misread this morning's printed 'the Age' newspaper and assumed that that the injunction hearing for the alleged Grand Final ticket 'scalping' company 'Ticket Flinders' was to be heard today (being 27/9/11). I was in the Practice Court today and feared that because of this hearing, my matter wouldn't be reached, or at least would be heard in the afternoon.

To my relief, it appears that the injunction hearing was heard before Kaye J yesterday (26/9/11) and an injunction was obtained restraining the businesses 'Sion Events' and 'TPTG Holdings' from selling tickets to the Grand Final.

Here's the extract from the Age online version:
VICTORIA'S Supreme Court has placed an injunction on an allegedly dodgy ticket agency that is scalping tickets for this Saturday's AFL grand final for up to $1750.
The injunction, issued by Justice Stephen Kaye, relates to an internet ticket broking agency called Ticket Finders which is not authorised to sell highly sought-after tickets to the event. 
Justice Kaye has also ordered that the directors of the business, operating as Sion Events and TPTG Holdings - Tom Gilmartin and David McGuire - refrain from advertising, selling, re-selling or distributing tickets to the event.
The injunction was sought by the state government's Department of Planning and Community Development, which administers the Major Sporting Events Act to ensure there is transparency and fairness in the manner in which tickets are sold to the general public for popular sporting events. 
Grand final tickets cannot be sold without written AFL permission or resold at a premium, with offenders facing fines of up to $6000 for individuals and $30,000 for companies.
An affidavit states the Ticket Finders website is selling grand final tickets that have been sourced from ''various suppliers within the industry'' and include a premium charged by the source whom the organisation has bought the tickets from. The agency is also accused of illegally advertising and selling tickets to last year's JB Were Masters golf tournament.

Monday, September 26, 2011

Google's US antitrust hearing on 21 September 2011

On 21 September 2011 a hearing took place in the US capital before the Senate Judicial Committee's antitrust subcommittee concerning Google's market power. The hearing inquired about whether Google is abusing its market power by prioritising its own businesses ahead of its competitors' businesses when users conduct a search using the Google search engine.

I have included a discussion of Google and the antitrust hearing below.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Late service of expert reports - Thomas v Powercor Australia Limited (Ruling No 3) [2011] VSC 391

The matter of Thomas v Powercor Australia Limited (Ruling No 3) [2011] VSC 391 is an application by a plaintiff for the Supreme Court of Victoria to accept an expert report served by the plaintiff on the third day of a trial. The trial concerns the Black Saturday Horsham bushfires and the application was before J Forrest J. The trial commenced on or about 3 September 2011 with the issue of liability concerning a conductor falling from a pole on a power line. 

The plaintiff was required to serve its expert report in April 2011 and the experts were ordered to meet and prepare a joint expert report by late June 2011. On the third day of the trial the plaintiff delivered an expert report. The expert opinion in the report concerned the manner in which a coach screw was fixed to the pole, which was considered to be material to the issues.

The report was rejected by the Court. I have included a case discussion and extracts below.

Friday, September 16, 2011

Waiver of privilege in a pleading - Towercom Pty Ltd v Fahour [2011] VSC 455

The matter of Towercom Pty Ltd v Fahour [2011] VSC 455 was an appeal from an Associate Judge to Macaulay J of the Supreme Court of Victoria. In the proceeding the defendant alleged that the plaintiff caused it loss by selling a property at an undervalue. The defendant sought disclosure of an expert report prepared for the plaintiff. The expert report was said to be the report which arrived at the loss alleged in the statement of claim. The only element from the report that was disclosed in the statement of claim was the loss, being the difference between the sale price and the alleged market value.

The defendant sought disclosure of the report under s26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) (the CPA) and, by reason of the refusal to disclose, sought an order under s29. The plaintiff claimed privilege over the report, but the defendant said that privilege had been waived by inclusion of the loss figure from the report in the statement of claim.

The Court held that the inclusion of the loss figure was not inconsistent with the maintenance of privilege, and therefore declined to order its disclosure. I have included a discussion and extracts of this matter below.

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Reasonable apprehension of bias - Bahonko v Moorfields Community [2011] VSCA 259

The matter of Bahonko v Moorfields Community & Ors [2011] VSCA 259 (Bahonko) was an appeal in the Court of Appeal before Buchanan, Redlich and Mandie JJA. The appeal was from the dismissal of the plaintiff's proceedings in the County Court of Victoria on the basis that the trial judge is disqualified by reason of apprehended bias on the basis of views expressed in a Law Reform Committee submission concerning vexatious litigants.

I have included a case discussion and extracts below.

Friday, September 2, 2011

NSW postpones introduction of 'reasonable steps' pre-litigation requirements

The New South Wales government has announced that is is postponing the introduction of its 'reasonable steps' pre-litigation requirements which it introduced in Part 2A of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  The postponement was announced by the NSW Attorney General, Greg Smith SC on 23 August 2011. Part 2A was originally set to apply to matters filed on or after 1 October 2011, however the government has announced a postponement of 18 months.

I have included a discussion on this below.