San Sebastian Pty Ltd V Minister 1986 Summary

While victorious, the plaintiff’s believed that the district court had erred in their decision not to award punitive damages. The defendants, on the other hand, argued that the court had erred in denying their motion for summary judgment.

This function of the law, ensuring reasonable predictability in daily life, is challenged within this case. This is shown within the case, from the perspective of being the owners of

The Council commenced proceedings in the Land and Environment Court, however they were dismissed by Lloyd J on February16 2005 for want of prosecution [5].

The court’s decision of termination of the appellants’ employment was not totally reasonable enough to terminate employment.

The appellant, Parkview Queensland Pty Ltd (“Parkview”), is a building contractor who commenced construction of a residential property development under a standard form building contract with Fortia funds Management Ltd (“Fortia”), the developer. Fortia financed the construction under a loan facility with the Bank of Western Australia Ltd (“BankWest”).

In this case, Success Assets Pty Ltd (Success) borrowed money from Statewest Credit Society Ltd (Statewest) to purchase land, and the land was mortgaged as security. The plaintiff entered into a guarantee in favour of Statewest which secured the loan and all future loans from Statewest to Success. Success used money borrowed from Home Building Society Ltd (Home) to pay the loan from Statewest. Statewest’s rights under the guarantee (which includes those relating to future loans) and Home’s rights under the were transferred to the defendant, Bank of Queensland (BOQ).

For these reasons, the government argued that Petitioner’s reliance on the law-of-the-case doctrine was misplaced. The government emphasized that Petitioner’s

“The impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion;”

Although Mr. Carr’s property does meet the criteria of Section 546 (0.1) in the Act of his property being “detrimental to the surrounding area” and causing decline in local property value and showing serious signs of disregard for maintenance and upkeep (Municipal Government Act Section 546, Pg. 289), the towns action were not lawful. Notification

Mr. Bubbenmoyer's work at the Melbourne store did not satisfy the three of the four elements of the administrative exemption. And these are the three reasons why we believe that lowers court decision is negligent and has to be reversed.

The contractor, upon the breach of his obligations, he caused some damages to the owner and he should be exposed to forfeiture.

The impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 on the doctrine of consideration.

If parties enter into a contract that is reflective or derives from a mistake, under common law the contract may be void or voidable. The basis of this decision depends on the type of mistake. Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson presented a unilateral mistake, in which only one party is mistaken, and in this case, a mistake as to the identity. The difficulty lies when judges must decide whether a contract is void or voidable, which will only protect one of the two arguably innocent parties, the original property owner or the bona fide purchaser. However, the approaches previously taken by the Courts have led to a lack of certainty and coherence in the interests of commercial transactions, and so the Shogun case presented an opportunity for clarification. I am going to raise the argument that the law of mistake is in need of a reform, by following Lord Millett’s proposal to no longer follow the cases Cundy v Lindsay and Ingram v Little. The reasoning within this argument will establish that the cases are inconsistent, lack support for third parties and fail to establish the authority of creditworthiness over identity in commercial contracts. Alternatively, the cases Phillips v Brooks and Lewis v Averay should be used to create a clear established line of case law which can be seen as a fair and practical approach towards mistake and protecting the bona fide purchaser.

Further to the general negligence position on public bodies, in instances of omissions the general principle is that there is no duty to act unless a special relationship exists. However, there is an exception, a duty is owed if proximity is established as demonstrated in Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] UKHL 2.

Perhaps the greatest insight provided by my colleague's discussion is the deconstruction of the process by which the concept of negligence did ultimately emerge as a new tort standard. Here, the discussion illustrates the challenge before a judicial body when a legal conflict appears to bring about a new and previously unforeseen point of contention. In this case, as my colleague highlights so effectively, the charge of fraud would be the only theretofore existent way of legally addressing liability for a business or organization such as the defendant in this case. The great insight provided by my colleague is in acknowledgement of the exhaustive review of existing legal documents engaged by the ruling parties and arguing parties. This process demonstrates well that even where no precedent existing for what would become the charge of negligence,