--- Magistrate B. Wright MELBOURNE REASONS FOR DECISION ---
|
|
- Herbert Summers
- 7 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE Revised Case No. B MILAN STANKOVIC Plaintiff v STEELFIELD VICTORIA PTY LTD Defendant --- MAGISTRATE Magistrate B. Wright WHERE HELD: MELBOURNE DATE OF HEARING: 28 February 2013 DATE OF DECISION: 21 March 2013 CASE MAY BE CITED AS: Stankovic v. Steelfield MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: Catchwords: REASONS FOR DECISION --- Workers Compensation Rejection of Claim Application to Dismiss Complaint Alleged Anshun Estoppel Application Dismissed Accident Compensation Act s.104b --- APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors For the Plaintiff Mr M Fleming SC Zaparas Lawyers For the Defendant Ms A Sheehan Hall and Wilcox
2 HIS HONOUR: 1 In the Amended Defence in these proceedings Steelfield has pleaded, inter alia, a special defence that Mr Stankovic is estopped from bringing the present action on the basis of an Anshun estoppel (see, Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589). Effectively, this is an application to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Order of the Magistrates' Court General Civil Procedure Rules In those circumstances, I heard argument on this preliminary point on 28 February 2013 and received oral and written submissions from counsel for both parties. 3 The Anshun estoppel arises out of earlier proceedings between the parties in this court, in which then Magistrate Lauritsen had delivered a decision on 7 June 2010 ( the earlier proceedings ). 4 I will briefly summarise the background of the disputes between the parties as outlined in submissions and the transcript of the earlier proceedings. 5 Steelfield employed Mr Stankovic as a welder. On 27 March 2009 he lodged a claim form for low back, deafness in ears, both knees. He said injuries occurred throughout the course of the employment knees starting late 2005 early 2006, noticed hearing loss and pain in ears in 2001, 2002, and back started about 2003, 2004 and "has been getting worse". 6 At that stage the claim form stated he had "not yet" stopped work. As to witnesses he stated "Michael, a co-worker, on 17 October 2006 whilst I was bent over working hit with a hammer on steel bench on which I was working". On 19 March 2009 a medical certificate was obtained for "low back pain and deafness". Further, on 23 March 2009 a medical certificate was obtained for "low back pain, deafness and sore knees". 7 He apparently ceased work that day. The claim was rejected by Notice on 1 DECISION
3 about 20 April 2009, denying injury and incapacity. 8 On about 3 July 2009 the earlier proceedings were issued seeking workers' compensation benefits for "neck, back, knees, bilateral hearing loss, left ear deafness, anxiety, pain and distress". 9 The basis of the claim was set out on what could be called a constellation basis in the Statement of Claim. It pleaded, (a) gradual process under s.82(6), (b) nature of the employment including squatting and bending, (c) during the course of employment continual exposure to noise and (d) throughout the course of employment including a similar basis for the ears, back and knees set out in the claim form as well as the incident in "early to mid 2006" when the co-worker struck the bench leading to "experience shock and pain to his back, noise in ears". 10 The Prayer for Relief sought weekly payments from 13 March 2009 onwards together with reasonable medical and like expenses. Thus, the basis of the claim and parts of the body included in the Statement of Claim were much wider than set out in the initiating claim form. 11 The earlier proceedings were fixed for hearing on 19 April 2010 and started before then Magistrate Lauritsen. Ms MacTiernan appeared for Mr Stankovic and Mr Batten appeared for Steelfield. At the outset Ms MacTiernan applied to amend the Statement of Claim as per a draft dated 16 April This purported to add a further claim that the "manner in which the redundancy was handled was unreasonable" as a further basis for the injury being work related. 12 Thus, an attempt was being made to add a new basis for a new primary psychiatric injury, presumably the "anxiety" already set out in the particulars of injury in the original Statement of Claim, which apart from reference to "shock caused by the hammer on the steel bench episode" had no other basis. 2 DECISION
4 13 The magistrate raised an issue that this amendment really required an adjournment to at least allow the Defendant to look at the new claim and file an amended Notice of Defence. Mr Batten pointed out to the magistrate the obvious point that the new primary psychiatric injury had not been the subject of any formal claim form. Ms MacTiernan then stated the amendment would not be "handed up" as it "hadn't been properly pleaded". She agreed with the magistrate's statement that what she really wanted was to adjourn the proceedings, lodge a new claim and "go through the whole process". 14 The magistrate after hearing further argument refused the application for the adjournment, referring to the High Court decision in AON Risk v ANU 293 CLR 175. After the ruling Ms MacTiernan raised the further problems caused by Anshun v PMA in relation to the magistrate's early ruling and sought the magistrate "reconsider your decision", as to the adjournment. There was considerable further discussion then as to AON Risk v ANU. Reference was also made to the psychiatric reports in the case. 15 The magistrate pointed out to Ms MacTiernan, "You can withdraw the claim if I gave you leave and start again". Ms MacTiernan did not take up the invitation, if it indeed was such. His Honour then ruled on the "fresh application for adjournment". He pointed out that an Anshun estoppel "may very well be the case" in respect of any new claim. However, he said that on the medical material he had been referred to "there doesn't seem to be anything much there". Then later he stated, "it's the most tenuous of references" (see, p.36 of the transcript of that Decision) referring to the proposed new claim. 16 The magistrate again refused the adjournment. Ms MacTiernan stood the matter down to get instructions, and then after a short break said the case was proceeding. It then ran to a decision by the magistrate over the next few days. 17 On 7 June 2010, the magistrate handed down his decision in the earlier 3 DECISION
5 proceedings. In short, he dismissed the claim to weekly payments and for all reasonable medical and like expenses, except for those expenses relating to, "bilateral knee injuries". He made Orders in that regard. 18 Subsequently, Mr Stankovic then lodged a new claim form on 7 February 2011 for "psychiatric condition", due to a "number of incidents over a period of time" during employment by Steelfield. Those incidents were namely (1) three incidents when a co-worker banged the bench when he was cutting metal, (2) when someone banged on toilet door while he was there frightening him and as to which the employer failed to heed and investigate and or advise complaints had been investigated and (3) "Unreasonable method to make me redundant". The new claim was rejected by Steelfield and these proceedings were issued on 2 August The Statement of Claim in the present proceedings pleaded mental injury arising throughout the course of the employment over a period of time due to a number of incidents, including a co-worker banging the work bench as the plaintiff was welding metal causing the plaintiff great stress and anxiety, a coworker banging the work bench as plaintiff was cutting metal causing plaintiff great stress and anxiety, a co-worker banging on the toilet door while plaintiff was inside frightening the plaintiff, the employer failing to heed and or investigate plaintiff's complaints and finally unreasonable method to make him redundant. 20 In his opening before me, plaintiff's senior counsel stated Mr Stankovic would not be seeking, at least at this stage, further amendments to the Statement of Claim. In its Amended Defence Stanfield denies injury and incapacity and further raises ss.102 and 103 defences as to notice of injury and claim. It also pleads s.82(2a) and specifically raises the Anshun estoppel point in relation to the earlier proceedings. 21 Plaintiff's senior counsel summarised the present Statement of Claim as 4 DECISION
6 raising a primary psychiatric injury, distinguishable from the secondary psychiatric injury in the earlier proceedings, save possibly for the reference to shock in relation to one bench banging incident. In addition, he pointed out the different employment circumstances pleaded in each proceeding. Although there may have been some discussion of the employment circumstances raised in the earlier proceedings he submitted, and I agree, they did not form part of His Honour's stated reasons on the pleadings before him in the decision in the earlier proceedings. 22 Before I consider both counsels' submissions in this case there are three points I would like to make. Firstly, as this is effectively an application to dismiss the proceedings Steelfield has the burden of proof. To that extent Steelfield submits that the Anshun principle makes the present proceedings "an abuse of process". It is clear such a finding should be exercised with caution, and only in the most exceptional case. The onus is a heavy one (see, Habib v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd & Anor [2009] NSWCA.231 at para. 79). 23 Secondly, apart from s.104b(5a) and (5AA) relating to ss.98c/98e claims, there is no legislative provision in the Accident Compensation Act ( the Act ) enshrining Anshun estoppel in claims involving weekly payments and/or reasonable medical and like expenses. Thirdly, as plaintiff's senior counsel submitted, this may be an explanation for the real lack of decided workers' compensation cases in Australia invoking an Anshun estoppel. 24 Apart from O'Flaherty v HIH Winterthur Workers' Compensation (Vic.) Ltd [1999] VCC 19, a decision of His Honour Judge Anderson of the County Court, the only workers compensation other case involving Anshun estoppel referred to by either counsel was Salmon Street v Jorgensen [1991] 56 SASR 158, which was apparently an impairment claim. 25 In that case King CJ who delivered the main judgment stated:- 5 DECISION
7 "The application of these Anshun principles to claims under Workers' Compensation legislation presents difficulties. The rights to compensation under the Workers' Compensation legislation however, differ markedly in nature from the rights to damages for a wrongful act conferred by the common law and the means provided for enforcing claims for Workers' Compensation are also very different from the common law remedies". Nevertheless, that South Australian court still considered Anshun principles in allowing the later claim. 26 After argument finished, and while I was writing this decision, I found a decision that I had handed down as well on an alleged Anshun estoppel. In Ruacan v Nylex (delivered 2 February 2011), the main argument advanced by the defendant in that case was an issue estoppel/res judicata defence based on earlier settlements of impairment claims. However, a further argument advanced by the defendant was an Anshun estoppel in default of the other arguments succeeding (see, pp.8 and 9 of my published decision). 27 In that case, there was little argument advanced by either counsel on this point. The case involved earlier common law proceedings and later workers' compensation proceedings between the same parties. That decision is of limited assistance to either party in the present case. 28 Because of the negligence issue in the earlier common law proceedings, it was reasonable to surmise that not all the worker's injuries in his employment could be raised in the common law proceedings, as opposed to the later workers' compensation proceedings. 29 Counsel for the defendant in the present proceedings was heavily reliant on the O'Flaherty decision in her submissions in this case. Although I am not bound to follow His Honour's decision, I should have regard to that decision noting that this is the only Australian weekly payments and/or reasonable medical and like expenses workers' compensation claim known to have been 6 DECISION
8 decided on Anshun principles. 30 In the present proceedings Counsel for the defendant submitted that the particulars as to how the injury occurred had all been "considered" in the earlier proceedings save for the "unreasonable redundant" issue. However, Senior counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the only possible overlap related to one of the incidents in which a co-worker hit the bench with a hammer. I agree with him. 31 The magistrate in the earlier proceedings specifically did not deal with any primary psychiatric injury after the failed applications for adjournment. Although it was discussed in the adjournment applications and referred to in Dr Kornan's report, there was no formal consideration of that aspect in the eventual decision. There was some reference to it in passing in the magistrate's decision on p.21 of the decision.. 32 If those facts had been formally considered then arguably there would probably be issue estoppel/res judicata defence raised in the present proceedings as well. However, this is not alleged by the defendant for the obvious reason that there is no issue estoppel or res judicata. 33 Counsel for the defendant applied the four questions asked by Judge Anderson in the O'Flaherty decision. Firstly, she said the plaintiff could have raised the later cause of action in the earlier proceedings by withdrawing the earlier proceeding and starting again, or alternatively, have given much earlier notice of any proposed amendment including a new claim. 34 Secondly, the same or substantially the same facts arise for consideration in the present proceedings. She submitted it was the "same" claim for incapacity arising from the cessation of employment. The same, or very similar, medical evidence would be used in the present proceedings. 35 Third, she submitted that any order made in the present proceedings would 7 DECISION
9 conflict with the decision in the earlier proceedings. 36 Fourthly, in addition to the previous points I have referred to, she submitted that both proceedings dealt, or would deal substantially, with the plaintiff's credit. 37 Finally, she said the present proceedings amount to an abuse of process referring to dicta in AON Risk v. ANU at paras in that it is desirable there be finality of legal proceedings between parties. 38 Senior counsel for the plaintiff's main submission as to the O'Flaherty decision is that it is distinguishable from the present proceeding. In the O'Flaherty decision, the case concerned not a separate injury or manifestation of injury but an alternative basis for work relationship. However, the present proceedings concern a different injury attributable to different causes. 39 In his written submission, senior counsel set out a detailed history of the Anshun principles after the High Court s judgment, especially in Victoria. As he points out, a court should not take a superficial approach and simply look at whether the parties are the same and the cause of action similar. There may be a variety of circumstances in which a party may justifiably refrain from litigating an issue in one proceeding but may wish to litigate in a subsequent proceeding (see Bill Gibbs v Kinna [1998] VSCA 52 at para. 28). Further, a finding of an Anshun estoppel should not be made lightly. In the Bill Gibbs v. Kinna decision, Warren CJ stated: "The invocation of the Anshun principle is a serious step and a power which should not be exercised without a scrupulous examination of all the circumstances. It is to be applied only in the clearest of cases as it ends a litigant's right to have the merits of a claim adjudicated and may result in a serious injustice if it applied too readily (Solak v. Registrar of Titles [2011] VSCA279 (citing Primus Telecommunications [2008] FCA1027 at para. 5)" 40 Such an approach to the application of the Anshun principles by the Victorian Supreme Court can also be seen as recently as 2012 in Whelan Kartaway v. 8 DECISION
10 Donnely and Anor [2011] VSC 45 per Davies J. at par The risk of inconsistent judgments (as opposed to the possibility of inconsistent factual findings) is the most important factor going to the existence of the Anshun principle. (see, Bill Gibbs v Kinna at para. 25 and Solak at para. 74). 42 As noted by senior counsel, in Anshun the High Court (at p.604) referred to "conflicting judgments" as being enough if all judgments appear to declare rights which are inconsistent (in respect of the same transaction). Senior counsel submits in the present case that the present proceedings claim a different mental injury (that is primary injury as opposed to secondary injury) and occurring in mostly distinguishable factual circumstances from the earlier proceedings. The only possible overlap relates to the previous allegation of "shock" in relation to one of the alleged incidents involving a co-worker banging the workbench. 43 Further, on a similar basis it cannot be said that the same facts will arise for consideration in the second, as in the first, proceeding (see, Bill Gibbs v Kinna per Kenny AJ at para. 23). 44 Finally, he made submissions as to what he refers to as the "special sense of reasonableness" looking beyond the issue of whether there would likely to be conflicting judgments. Kenny AJ in Bill Gibbs v. Kinna at para. 28 and Davies J in Whelan Kartaway v. Donnely at para. 23 refer to such issues as including "The character of the previous proceeding, the scope of any pleadings, the length and complexity of any trial, any real or reasonably perceived difficulties in raising the relevant claim earlier and any other explanation for the failure to raise the claim previously". 45 In this regard, senior counsel makes three submissions. Firstly, the defendant carries the burden of proof of showing the "failure" to advance the cause of action in the present proceedings as being unreasonable. Secondly, the 9 DECISION
11 plaintiff sought to amend the earlier proceedings to add "unreasonable redundancy", which he said was refused on AON Risk v ANU principles. Thirdly, any unreasonableness goes to the timing of the proposed amendment rather than a failure to raise the issue at all. Fourthly, the decision to amend the proceedings was based upon a consideration, albeit a late one, how to best advance the plaintiff's decision to seek workers'' compensation "... in the context of multiple complaints by the plaintiff about the workplace, difficult medical evidence, and challenging issues of proof. 46 Overall, I agree with senior counsel's submission in this matter for the reasons he has outlined. I am not satisfied it was "unreasonable" for the plaintiff to have not included the matters in the present proceedings as part of the earlier proceedings. 47 I have already referred to some issues I have with the defendant's submissions. I note Counsel emphasises that some of the matters raised in the present proceedings were set out (to a limited extent) in Dr Kornan's medical report. This was the subject of much discussion in the applications for adjournment of the earlier proceedings. 48 However, that report is dated 26 March 2010, which is less than three weeks prior to the date of hearing of the earlier proceedings. In any event, plaintiff's then counsel applied to adjourn the matter twice on the date of hearing to allow the matters relating to a primary psychiatric injury to be included. This aspect is very important in this case. The plaintiff's advisors took active steps to include matters in the earlier proceedings now referred to present proceedings, unlike the facts in the O'Flaherty decision. 49 The defendant objected to that adjournment which was then refused on AON Risk v ANU principles. The defendant now submits that the present proceedings should be dismissed on an Anshun estoppel basis. Whether or not the magistrate in the earlier proceedings considered that there was any 10 DECISION
12 basis for the proposed new claim in the material put to him on the day is not to the point. Such primary psychiatric injury as pleaded in the present proceedings was not properly before the court at that stage. I agree with the plaintiff's senior counsel as to the defendant's other submissions in this application and need not take these matters any further. 50 Although I can understand Counsel s reliance upon the questions raised by Judge Anderson in the O'Flaherty decision, that case was different on the facts. Each case should be examined on its merits. 51 That is not to say that I do not see that the Anshun principle is irrelevant in workers' compensation cases. However, because of their very nature I believe courts should be more careful in workers' compensation matters in considering the dismissal of proceedings using Anshun principles. Workers' compensation cases are different to other civil cases and even common law personal injury cases. This may partly explain the lack of Anshun estoppel findings in workers' compensation cases in Australia. This was pointed out by King CJ in the Salmon Street v. Jorgensen decision (supra). 52 The Accident Compensation Act has detailed and relatively complex preliminary provisions as to notice of injury, claims for compensation, the requirement for "decisions" and the need for conciliation certificates before proceedings can be commenced. In addition, in workers' compensation cases there are often later and continuing developments such as changes in diagnosis, the development of consequential psychiatric and physical injuries and symptoms, further claims by workers and later further notices of decision by the Authority, authorised agents or self insurers. 53 The above factors may well be a reason why there no statutory Anshun type provision relating to weekly payments and reasonable medical and like expenses has ever been included in the Workers' Compensation Act or the Accident Compensation Act as opposed to s.104b dealing with s.98c and 11 DECISION
13 98E applications. 54 Of their very nature, s.98c/98e claims cannot be made until at least 12 months after the relevant injury or earlier if there is stabilisation (see s.104b(1) and (2)). Thus, the basis of any s98c/98e claims should be appreciated and understood by that time. 55 As I have already stated, the lack of any legislative Anshun type provision in the Act does not preclude its possible relevance to the present case. However, for the reasons I have set out, I do not accede to the defendant's arguments in this case. The application by the defendant to dismiss these proceedings is itself dismissed. 12 DECISION
--- Magistrate B R Wright. Melbourne REASONS FOR DECISION ---
!Undefined Bookmark, I IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE Case No. D11970768 JOHN SAUNDERS Plaintiff v VICTORIAN WORKCOVER AUTHORITY Defendant --- MAGISTRATE: Magistrate B R Wright WHERE
More informationWORKCOVER DIVISION Case No. E12850768 --- S GARNETT MELBOURNE REASONS FOR RULING ---
!Undefined Bookmark, I IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE WORKCOVER DIVISION Case No. E12850768 CHERYL ANN COWIE Plaintiff v ELYNWOOD PTY LTD Defendant --- MAGISTRATE: S GARNETT WHERE HELD:
More informationWORKCOVER DIVISION Case No.F13065041 CLINICAL LABORATORIES PTY LTD --- S GARNETT LATROBE VALLEY REASONS FOR DECISION ---
!Und efined Boo kmark, I IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF VICTORIA AT LATROBE VALLEY WORKCOVER DIVISION Case No.F13065041 SHARON TURNER Plaintiff v CLINICAL LABORATORIES PTY LTD Defendant MAGISTRATE: S GARNETT
More information--- Magistrate B.R. Wright. Melbourne REASONS FOR DECISION ---
!Undefined Bookmark, I IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE C10129419 RODGER BROOKS Plaintiff v FORD MOTOR COMPANY OF AUSTRALIA LIMITED Defendant --- MAGISTRATE: Magistrate B.R. Wright WHERE
More informationVENTURE MOULD & ENGINEERING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD --- Magistrate B.R. Wright. Melbourne REASONS FOR DECISION ---
!Und efined Boo kmark, I IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE D11638505 MICHAEL MILOVANOVIC Plaintiff v VENTURE MOULD & ENGINEERING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD Defendant --- MAGISTRATE: Magistrate B.R.
More informationAlternative Dispute Resolution Can it work for Administrative Law?
Alternative Dispute Resolution Can it work for Administrative Law? The Honourable Justice Garde AO RFD, President of VCAT Paper delivered on 26 February 2014 to a seminar hosted by the Australian Institute
More informationISSUES PAPER LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND JURISDICTIONAL LIMIT IN SMALL CLAIMS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND JUSTICE ISSUES PAPER LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND JURISDICTIONAL LIMIT IN SMALL CLAIMS June 2013 Legal Policy Division Department of the Attorney-General and Justice
More information--- Magistrate B Wright. Melbourne REASONS FOR DECISION ---
!Undefined Bookmark, I IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE X02556418 MARCUS NICOLAIDIS Plaintiff v MEDIA V PTY LTD Defendant --- MAGISTRATE: Magistrate B Wright WHERE HELD: Melbourne DATE
More informationWill changes to Queensland s workers compensation laws for psychiatric injuries stress out public liability respondents?
- MCW In Focus Insurance Will changes to Queensland s workers compensation laws for psychiatric injuries stress out public liability respondents? Carl Moseling - Insurance Sunshine Coast - T 07 5352 9820
More informationINFORMATION / FACT SHEET CRIME TO TRIAL PROCESS CRIMINAL COURT HEARINGS EXPLAINED
INFORMATION / FACT SHEET CRIME TO TRIAL PROCESS CRIMINAL COURT HEARINGS EXPLAINED *(Please be advised that this is a general guide only and is by no means an exhaustive summary of all criminal court hearings.
More information12 May 2014. Professor Barbara McDonald Commissioner Australian Law Reform Commission GPO Box 3708 Sydney NSW 2001. By Email to: info@alrc.gov.
12 May 2014 Geoff Bowyer T 03 9607 9497 F 03 9607 5270 president@liv.asn.au Professor Barbara McDonald Commissioner Australian Law Reform Commission GPO Box 3708 Sydney NSW 2001 By Email to: info@alrc.gov.au
More informationCITATION: Dusanka Aleksic AND Q-COMP (WC/2013/4) - Decision <http://www.qirc.qld.gov.au> QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: Dusanka Aleksic AND Q-COMP (WC/2013/4) - Decision QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - s. 550 - procedure
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAHIKENG
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST HIGH
More informationVCAT Retail Tenancies List
VCAT Retail Tenancies List Click on title to go to: What is the Retail Tenancies List? What are retail premises? How do I bring a dispute to the Tribunal? Application Forms Application Fees (Press the
More informationIN THE COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON TANYA LABONTE, JESSE STECHYNSKY AND RHONDA MCPHEE. - and
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON Action No. 0403-12898 B E T W E E N : TANYA LABONTE, JESSE STECHYNSKY AND RHONDA MCPHEE Plaintiffs - and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN
More informationHow To Prove Negligence In A Fire Door Case
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY COURT OF APPEAL Case Title: Brozinic v The Federal Capital Press Pty Limited trading as The Canberra Times Citation: [2015] ACTCA 8 Hearing Date: 14 November
More informationLEGAL COSTS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA'S WORKERS' COMPENSATION SCHEME
BLAKE DAWSON WALDRON SOLICITORS LEGAL COSTS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA'S WORKERS' COMPENSATION SCHEME February 1997 Workcover Corporation,. Library Worl(Cove _. i00,waymouth Street toz.v.,.;4.'rk:iilatil Adelaide
More informationMODEL DIRECTIONS FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES (2012) - before Master Roberts and Master Cook
MODEL DIRECTIONS FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES (2012) - before Master Roberts and Master Cook Introductory note. These are the Model Directions for use in the first Case Management Conference in clinical
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2011] NZEmpC 169 ARC 54/11. THERMOSASH COMMERCIAL LIMITED Defendant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2011] NZEmpC 169 ARC 54/11 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER OF an application to strike out the
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND PROTOCOL FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LITIGATION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND PROTOCOL FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LITIGATION 1. Practitioners are reminded of the need to bear in mind the overriding objective set out at Order 1 rule 1(a)
More informationRULE 63 DIVORCE AND FAMILY LAW
RULE 63 DIVORCE AND FAMILY LAW Definitions (1) In this rule, Application claim for relief includes a child support order, a spousal support order, a custody order, a property order, and corollary relief
More informationAndrew Thurlow & Suzanne Innocenzi v The Architect Studio Pty Ltd [2008] NTMC 005 THE ARCHITECT STUDIO PTY LTD
CITATION: PARTIES: Andrew Thurlow & Suzanne Innocenzi v The Architect Studio Pty Ltd [2008] NTMC 005 ANDREW THURLOW SUZANNE INNOCENZI v THE ARCHITECT STUDIO PTY LTD TITLE OF COURT: JURISDICTION: Local
More informationCATCHWORDS. Slip rule, when applicable, costs, assessment of costs, assessment of costs arising under a domestic building insurance policy.
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CIVIL DIVISION DOMESTIC BUILDING LIST VCAT Reference: D144/2004 D145/2004 CATCHWORDS Slip rule, when applicable, costs, assessment of costs, assessment of costs
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Toor v. Harding, 2013 BCSC 1202 Amrit Toor and Intech Engineering Ltd. Date: 20130705 Docket: S125365 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiffs Thomas
More informationASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
ST (s92(4)(a): meaning of has made ) Turkey [2007] UKAIT 00085 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House Date of Hearing: 15 May 2007 Before: Mr C M G Ockelton, Deputy
More informationCHAPTER 43 ACTIONS OF DAMAGES FOR, OR ARISING FROM, PERSONAL INJURIES
CHAPTER 43 ACTIONS OF DAMAGES FOR, OR ARISING FROM, PERSONAL INJURIES Application and interpretation of this Chapter 43.1.-(1) Subject to paragraph (4) and rule 43.1A (actions based on clinical negligence).
More informationDeputy Commissioner of Taxation v Polcarp Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1142 (29 September 2011) FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Polcarp Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1142 (29 September 2011) Last Updated: 10 October 2011 FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Polcarp Pty Ltd [2011] FCA
More informationUnfair Dismissal Overview Definitions What is a dismissal? Constructive Dismissal not What is unfair dismissal? unfairly dismissed
Unfair Dismissal Overview This module contains information on the new unfair dismissal laws and covers off the following matters: Definitions surrounding unfair dismissal The Small Business Fair Dismissal
More information- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BAKER. - and - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWHC 2668 (QB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION BEFORE: Case No: QB/2013/0325 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 31 July 2013 HIS HONOUR
More informationMurrell v Healy [2001] ADR.L.R. 04/05
CA on appeal from Brighton CC (HHJ Coates) before Waller LJ; Dyson LJ. 5 th April 2001. JUDGMENT : LORD JUSTICE WALLER : 1. This is an appeal from Her Honour Judge Coates who assessed damages in the following
More informationBefore : THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE COULSON - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : PANTELLI ASSOCIATES LIMITED.
Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 3189 (TCC) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT Case No: HT-10-332 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
More information--- Magistrate B.R. Wright. Melbourne REASONS FOR DECISION ---
IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE C13093250 IAN DEANS Plaintiff v SOMERVILLE PLASTER PTY LTD Defendant --- MAGISTRATE: Magistrate B.R. Wright WHERE HELD: Melbourne DATE OF HEARING: 30 January
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 6/29/16 In re A.S. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationTenant Advocacy Practice Note 13-02 Residential tenancies and the Australian Consumer Law
Tenant Advocacy Practice Note 13-02 Residential tenancies and the Australian Consumer Law Background Residential tenancies are primarily regulated by the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (the RTA). However,
More informationSingapore International Commercial Court Practice Directions (Amendment No. 1 of 2016) Part X: Originating Processes and Documents
Singapore International Commercial Court Practice Directions (Amendment No. 1 of 2016) Part X: Originating Processes and Documents 66A. Timelines for proceedings commenced by Writ of Summons and by Originating
More informationAdvice Note. An overview of civil proceedings in England. Introduction
Advice Note An overview of civil proceedings in England Introduction There is no civil code in England; English civil law comprises of essentially legislation by Parliament and decisions by the courts.
More informationGADSBY WICKS SOLICITORS EXPLANATION OF LEGAL TERMS
EXPLANATION OF LEGAL TERMS Affidavit: After the event litigation insurance: Application notice: Bar Council: Barrister: Basic Charges: Before the Event Legal Expenses Insurance: Bill of costs: Bolam test:
More informationRegistrar's Practice Guide for Work Injury Damages in the Workers Compensation Commission
Registrar's Practice Guide for Work Injury Damages in the Workers Compensation Commission The Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 ('the Act') establishes a process for progressing
More informationChapter 26. Litigation guardians. CONTENTS Introduction 570 Current law 570 Community responses 571 The Commission s views and conclusions 573
6 CONTENTS Introduction 570 Current law 570 Community responses 571 The Commission s views and conclusions 573 569 Introduction 26.1 This chapter deals with the ability of substitute decision makers to
More informationExpert Evidence In Professional Negligence Claims
BuildLaw - Issue 13 Expert Evidence In Professional Negligence Claims 1 Expert Evidence In Professional Negligence Claims A recent High Court decision has provided practical guidance on the use of expert
More informationSUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Full Court)
SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Full Court) LEGAL PRACTITIONERS CONDUCT BOARD v KUDRA [2014] SASCFC 37 Judgment of The Full Court (The Honourable Justice Gray, The Honourable Justice Sulan and The Honourable
More informationTHE FIRTH V SUTTON DECISIONS
THE FIRTH V SUTTON DECISIONS Introduction In professional negligence proceedings against a solicitor, the court s aim is to determine what amount of money would put the plaintiff in the position he would
More informationOFFER BY WPP GROUP PLC ("WPP")
THE TAKEOVER PANEL 2001/15 OFFER BY WPP GROUP PLC ("WPP") FOR TEMPUS GROUP PLC ("TEMPUS") 1. The Takeover Panel met on 31 October to hear an appeal by WPP against the Panel Executive's refusal to allow
More informationLABOUR COURTS AND CCMA RULES
Page 1 of 9 LABOUR COURTS AND CCMA RULES LABOUR APPEAL COURT RULES RULES REGULATING THE CONDUCT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT Act Published under GN 1666 of 14 October 1996 [with effect
More informationTransport Accident Act Common Law Protocols 1 April 2005 (amended as from March 2010)
Transport Accident Act Common Law Protocols 1 April 2005 (amended as from March 2010) 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Consistent with its mission and vision statement, Client Service Charter and public commitment
More informationLegal Action / Claiming Compensation in Scotland
Legal Action / Claiming Compensation in Scotland This help sheet explains your legal rights if you have been injured as a result of medical treatment and the steps involved in seeking compensation through
More informationAnti-bullying jurisdiction
Anti-bullying jurisdiction Summary of the case management model For implementation from 1 January 2014 1 Overview 1.1 Purpose 1. This paper summarises the procedures and associated functions to be adopted
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Filed 2/11/15 Estate of Thomson CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified
More informationCase 2:14-cv-01934-MBN Document 91 Filed 08/25/15 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NUMBER: 14-1934
Case 2:14-cv-01934-MBN Document 91 Filed 08/25/15 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA GREG EDWARDS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NUMBER: 14-1934 ROWAN COMPANIES, INC. SECTION:
More informationASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL DM (Timing of funding application) Zimbabwe [2006] UKAIT 00088 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House Determination Promulgated: On: 24 October 2006 30 November 2006
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Webber v. Boutilier, 2016 NSSC 5
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Webber v. Boutilier, 2016 NSSC 5 Date: 20160105 Docket: Hfx No. 241129 Registry: Halifax Between: Cindy June Webber v. Plaintiff Arthur Boutilier and Dartmouth Central
More informationinsurance specialists
insurance specialists Damming Evidence: Judges Empowered to Restrict the Flow of Expert Evidence July 2012 Wotton + Kearney Insurance Lawyers Sydney Level 5, Aurora Place, 88 Phillip Street, Sydney Telephone
More informationClaims Against Public Officials. Introduction. Negligence inconsistent duties of public officials. Client Newsletter
Litigation Client Newsletter Claims Against Public Officials Recent Significant Cases February 2008 Introduction This newsletter throws a spotlight on negligence claims against the police and raises the
More informationAUTOMART LIMITED V. WAQA ROKOTUINASAU - ERCA NO. 9 OF 2012 JUDGMENT
IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COURT AT SUVA APPELLATE JURISDICTION CASE NUMBER: ERCA NO. 09 OF 2012 BETWEEN: AUTOMART LIMITED APPELLANT AND: WAQA ROKOTUINASAU RESPONDENT Appearances: Ms. Drova for the Appellant.
More informationDepartment for Business, Innovation and Skills Employment Tribunal rules: review by Mr Justice Underhill Response by Thompsons Solicitors
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills Employment Tribunal rules: review by Mr Justice Underhill Response by Thompsons Solicitors November 2012 About Thompsons Thompsons is the most experienced
More informationChapter 6B STATE ELIGIBILITY GUIDELINES. Last Amended: 1 July 2006. Manual of Legal Aid
Chapter 6B STATE ELIGIBILITY GUIDELINES Last Amended: 1 July 2006 Manual of Legal Aid TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 6B - STATE ELIGIBILITY GUIDELINES GENERAL...3 PROVISION OF LEGAL ASSISTANCE...3 GENERAL GUIDELINES
More informationPersisting Difficulties with Serious Injury Applications
Persisting Difficulties with Serious Injury Applications By Andrew Ingram and Michael Schaefer Plaintiffs often have to overcome serious obstacles along the way when making a serious injury application
More informationReal Estate Agents and Workers Compensation
Real Estate Agents and Workers Compensation Robert Guthrie School of Business Law Curtin University of Technology Abstract This paper examines aspects of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act
More informationIN THE MANCHESTER COUNTY COURT No.2QT66034. 1 Bridge Street West Manchester M60 9DJ. Claimant. Defendant
1 0 1 0 1 IN THE MANCHESTER COUNTY COURT No.QT0 1 Bridge Street West Manchester M0 DJ 0 th November B e f o r e:- DISTRICT JUDGE MATHARU COMBINED SOLUTIONS UK Ltd. (Trading as Combined Parking Solutions)
More informationFactors to Consider When Handling a Long Term Disability Benefits Case. Several issues may arise in the course of a lawsuit for long term disability
Factors to Consider When Handling a Long Term Disability Benefits Case Several issues may arise in the course of a lawsuit for long term disability benefits. This paper provides strategic suggestions on
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON. TALMAGE CRUMP v. KIMBERLY BELL
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON TALMAGE CRUMP v. KIMBERLY BELL A Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. 85116-6 The Honorable George H. Brown, Jr., Judge No. W1999-00673-COA-R3-CV
More informationExpert. Clear. Professional.
Expert. Clear. Professional. PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS STREAMLINE SERVICE SMALL CLAIMS AND STREAMLINE SERVICES Bringing a claim in professional negligence can be expensive. We want to make sure we
More informationHow To Find Out If You Can Pay A Worker Under The Cfa
Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWCA Civ 415 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM BRISTOL COUNTY COURT (HIS HONOUR JUDGE DENYER QC) A2/2014/0127 Royal Courts of Justice Strand London,
More informationMinisterial Directions under section 104A
Accident Compensation Act 1985 Ministerial Directions under section 104A I, Robert Graham Cameron, Minister for WorkCover, hereby issue the attached Ministerial Directions under section 104A of the Accident
More informationQueensland PERSONAL INJURIES PROCEEDINGS ACT 2002
Queensland PERSONAL INJURIES PROCEEDINGS ACT 2002 Act No. 24 of 2002 Queensland PERSONAL INJURIES PROCEEDINGS ACT 2002 TABLE OF PROVISIONS Section Page CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY PART 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Short
More informationACCIDENT BENEFITS: RECENT CHANGES AND DEVELOPMENTS
The Law Society of Upper Canada October 18, 2007 ACCIDENT BENEFITS: RECENT CHANGES AND DEVELOPMENTS Richard M. Bogoroch, Melinda J. Baxter and Tripta S. Chandler Bogoroch & Associates REPRESENTING PERSONS
More informationCommon Reasons for Litigation- Claims
De-coding Commercial Litigation MAY 2005 EDITION Contents Introduction 1 An Alarming Trend 2 The Causes 2 The Best Risk Management An Informed Client 3 The Most Common Mistakes 3 1. Failure to issue proceedings
More informationDefending An Employment Tribunal Claim
Defending An Employment Tribunal Claim 1. Employment tribunals What you need to know to defend a claim Employment tribunals hear cases and make decisions on employment issues such as unfair dismissal,
More informationGLOSSARY OF SELECTED LEGAL TERMS
GLOSSARY OF SELECTED LEGAL TERMS Sources: US Courts : http://www.uscourts.gov/library/glossary.html New York State Unified Court System: http://www.nycourts.gov/lawlibraries/glossary.shtml Acquittal A
More informationSPECIALIST 24 HR CRIMINAL DEFENCE
SPECIALIST 24 HR CRIMINAL DEFENCE What happens at the Police Station? Often the most important stage in any case is what happens in the police station. In most cases you will be under arrest and it may
More informationOntario Supreme Court Ross v. Christian & Timbers Inc. Date: 2002-04-30 Mark Ross, Plaintiff. and. Christian and Timbers, Inc.
Ontario Supreme Court Ross v. Christian & Timbers Inc. Date: 2002-04-30 Mark Ross, Plaintiff and Christian and Timbers, Inc., Defendant Ontario Superior Court of Justice Swinton J. Heard: April 18, 2002
More informationTORT AND INSURANCE LAW REPORTER. Informal Discovery Interviews Between Defense Attorneys and Plaintiff's Treating Physicians
This article originally appeared in The Colorado Lawyer, Vol. 25, No. 26, June 1996. by Jeffrey R. Pilkington TORT AND INSURANCE LAW REPORTER Informal Discovery Interviews Between Defense Attorneys and
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Merlo v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 BCSC 1136 Date: 20130625 Docket: S122255 Registry: Vancouver Between: Brought under the Class Proceedings Act,
More informationPRE-ACTION PROTOCOL FOR LOW VALUE PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS IN ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS
PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL FOR LOW VALUE PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS IN ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS Contents SECTION I - INTRODUCTION Definitions Paragraph 1.1 Preamble Paragraph 2.1 Aims Paragraph 3.1 Scope Paragraph
More informationLAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE) AMENDMENT BILL 2001
1 LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE) AMENDMENT BILL 2001 EXPLANATORY NOTES GENERAL OUTLINE OBJECTIVES OF THE LEGISLATION The purpose of this Bill is to address the impact of the decision of the High
More information2009 BCCA 78 Pearlman v. American Commerce Insurance Company
Page 1 of 8 COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Pearlman v. American Commerce Insurance Company, 2009 BCCA 78 David Pearlman American Commerce Insurance Company, and Betsy Morrisette
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20080219 Docket: CI 07-01-50371 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Pickering v. The Government of Manitoba et al Cited as: 2008 MBQB 56 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: ) COUNSEL: ) THERESA
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 13/33469 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED... DATE...
More informationRule 60A - Child and Adult Protection
Rule 60A - Child and Adult Protection Scope of Rule 60A 60A.01(1) This Rule is divided into four parts and it provides procedure for each of the following: (c) (d) protection of a child, and other purposes,
More informationAlternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Procedures
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Procedures The background Traditional dispute resolution procedures Private Negotiation 1. A lost skill, negotiation is a process of the parties themselves or via skilled
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Date of Release: January 31, 1996 No. B934523 Vancouver Registry IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: ) ) EMMA ESTEPANIAN, by her Guardian ) Ad Litem, SABINA GHAZARIAN ) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
More information2014 IL App (1st) 130250-U. No. 1-13-0250 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2014 IL App (1st) 130250-U FIFTH DIVISION September 12, 2014 No. 1-13-0250 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited
More informationPRACTICE DIRECTION AMENDMENTS
PRACTICE DIRECTION AMENDMENTS The new Practice Direction Case Management Pilot supplementing the Court of Protection Rules 2007 is made by the President of the Court of Protection under the powers delegated
More informationAmendments to the Rules to Civil Procedure: Yours to E-Discover. Prepared by Christopher M. Bartlett Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
Amendments to the Rules to Civil Procedure: Yours to E-Discover Prepared by Christopher M. Bartlett Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP September 25, 2009 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure: Yours to
More informationMEMORANDUM ON OFFERS TO SETTLE. 1. What is an Offer to Settle? 2. Why Make an Offer to Settle? 3. How Can it Help to Make an Offer to Settle?
MEMORANDUM ON OFFERS TO SETTLE 1. What is an Offer to Settle? 2. Why Make an Offer to Settle? 3. How Can it Help to Make an Offer to Settle? The purpose of this memorandum is to assist you in understanding
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV-2012-409-002405 [2013] NZHC 801. NGAI TAHU JUSTICE HOLDINGS LIMITED Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV-2012-409-002405 [2013] NZHC 801 BETWEEN AND NGAI TAHU JUSTICE HOLDINGS LIMITED Plaintiff THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Defendant Hearing: 18 April 2013
More informationThe court held a hearing on March 27, 2008 to consider the application by
STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION Do.cket Nos. cv-70-10..d. AP-06-56 ' I ',, '.', ',1-- I I. C\ J. ELIZABETH NIITCHELL, et al., v. Plaintiffs, PORTLAND FINE FURNITURE and DESIGN
More informationPROTECTING THE VULNERABLE THE ROLE OF VCAT s GUARDIANSHIP LIST AND THE ROLE OF LAWYERS. John Billings. Deputy President. Guardianship List, VCAT
PROTECTING THE VULNERABLE THE ROLE OF VCAT s GUARDIANSHIP LIST AND THE ROLE OF LAWYERS John Billings Deputy President Guardianship List, VCAT 55 King Street Melbourne 3000 Tel (03) 9628 9911 Fax (03) 9628
More informationSUBMISSION TO THE PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION. Default Superannuation Funds in Modern Awards
SUBMISSION TO THE PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION Default Superannuation Funds in Modern Awards 5 April 2012 Introduction DEFAULT SUPERANNUATION FUNDS IN MODERN AWARDS The Australian Industry Group (Ai Group)
More information2013 IL App (1st) 120546-U. No. 1-12-0546 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2013 IL App (1st) 120546-U Third Division March 13, 2013 No. 1-12-0546 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More informationBefore : Mr Justice Morgan - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWHC 3848 (Ch) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION 1 Case No: HC12A02388 Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: Tuesday,
More informationKelly Graham Brennan. Melbourne. Senior Member A Vassie
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CIVIL DIVISION CIVIL CLAIMS LIST VCAT REFERENCE NO C5955/2012 CATCHWORDS Summary dismissal claim against manager of stratum-estate service company applicant
More informationIN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) DECISION
SAINT LUCIA IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) CLAIM NO. SLUHCV2008/0172 BETWEEN: LEN ISHMAEL Claimant And TIMOTHY POLEON RADIO CARIBBEAN 1982 LTD Defendants Appearances:
More informationMotor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute Resolution) Act 2007 No 95
New South Wales Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 No 41 2 4 Amendment of other
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV 2003-485-1921. BETWEEN VERONICA WEIR Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV 2003-485-1921 BETWEEN VERONICA WEIR Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 15 July 2004 Appearances: J Miller & S A
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) SONNYBOY BEKENG MAOKO Applicant. COUNCIL 1 st Respondent
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO: JR 2580/09 In the matter between: SONNYBOY BEKENG MAOKO Applicant and METAL AND ENGINEERING BARGAINING COUNCIL 1 st Respondent THEMBAKEILE
More informationAGUIRRE v. UNION PACIFIC RR. CO. 597 Cite as 20 Neb. App. 597. N.W.2d
AGUIRRE v. UNION PACIFIC RR. CO. 597 At the hearing on the motion to withdraw his plea, he requested that the court take judicial notice of a six-page portion of the U.S. statutes. The court took judicial
More informationAustralian Gulf War Veterans Association. Repatriation Medical Authority [2014] AICmr 19 (20 February 2014)
Australian Gulf War Veterans Association and Repatriation Medical Authority [2014] AICmr 19 (20 February 2014) Decision and reasons for decision of Timothy Pilgrim, Privacy Commissioner Applicant: Respondent:
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) BP SOUTHERN AFRICA (PTY) LTD
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO. J 841/09 In the matter between: BP SOUTHERN AFRICA (PTY) LTD Applicant and THE NATIONAL BARGAINING COUNCIL FOR THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY 1 ST
More information