Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 19 August 2009 33 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

Produced by the High Court of Australia Library

[2009] HCAB 6 (19 August 2009)

A record of recent High Court of Australia cases: decided, reserved for judgment, awaiting hearing in the Court’s original jurisdiction, granted special leave to appeal, and refused special leave t1o appeal.

1: Cases Handed Down
2: Cases Reserved
3: Original Jurisdiction
4: Special Leave Granted
5: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated
6: Special Leave Dismissed

1: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the July–August 2009 sittings.

ACQ Pty Ltd v Cook & Anor; Aircair Moree Pty Ltd v Cook & Anor

High Court of Australia: [2009] HCA 28.

Judgment delivered: 5 August 2009.

Coram: French CJ, Gummow, Heydon, Crennan and Bell JJ.

Catchwords:

Torts — Negligence — Causation — Statutory modification — Crop dusting aircraft struck an electrical power pole, causing an electrical wire conductor to sag to 1.5m above the ground — Conductor lay over a muddy field planted with rows of cotton plants between irrigation ditches — Two electrical linesmen were dispatched to fix the conductor — While the conductor was still live, one linesman approached the conductor, and tripped or fell to within 60mm of the conductor, causing “flashover” (an unintended electric arc between a conductor and another object) — Whether injury was “caused by … something that is a result of an impact” with an aircraft that is in flight: Damage by Aircraft Act 1999 (Cth), s 10(1)(d).
Torts — Negligence — Duty of care — Scope of — Whether pilot of crop-dusting aircraft owed a duty of care to electrical linesman — Whether linesman was a “rescuer” for the purposes of assessing duty of care.

Appealed from NSW SC (CA): [2008] NSWCA 161.

AON Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University

High Court of Australia: [2009] HCA 27.

Judgment delivered: 5 August 2009.

Coram: French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ.

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure — Pleadings — Application for leave to amend — Prejudice — Leave to amend sought after commencement of trial — Whether opponent must demonstrate specific prejudice caused by the amendments that cannot be met by a costs order — Application of Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146 (“J L Holdings”) — Whether J L Holdings has been properly interpreted — Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT), r 21.
Practice and procedure — Pleadings — Application for leave to amend — Prejudice — Respondent made deliberate tactical decision to exclude an issue from proceedings — Whether right to amendment to reverse deliberate forensic decision.
Practice and procedure — Pleadings — Application for leave to amend — Discretion to grant — Whether party is required to offer explanation when seeking to amend pleadings — Application of J L Holdings.
Courts and judicial system — Abuse of process — Respondent seeks to maintain claims directly inconsistent with the consent judgment obtained against…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read High Court Bulletin and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] HCAB 6
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of High Court Bulletin involved multiple cases before the High Court of Australia. One such case was Campbell & Anor v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd & Anor. The primary legal issue in this case was whether the conduct of the vendor was misleading or deceptive, and whether the purchaser suffered loss or damage by the conduct of the vendor. The court found that the conduct of the vendor was misleading or deceptive, and that the purchaser had suffered loss or damage by the conduct of the vendor. The court also found that the vendor had breached warranties in the share sale agreement and had breached an implied duty to co-operate. The court ordered the repurchase of the share in the company by the vendor. This case highlights the importance of accurately stating financial performance and correcting inaccuracies in documents prior to making a share sale agreement, as well as the potential consequences of misleading or deceptive conduct in such transactions.

Orders