September 10, 2012 – 5:29 pm
In Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2012] HCA 30, the Australian High Court decided that bank fees may potentially be penalties, notwithstanding the fact that the trigger for the imposition of most of the fees was not a breach of contract. I’ve already outlined the law against penalties in some detail […]
By Legal Eagle
|
Posted in Economics, Equity, Law
|
Also tagged ANZ, ANZ v Andrews, bank fees, banks, class action, contract law, Equity, form and substance, liquidated damages, New South Wales Court of Appeal, penalties, remedies
|
September 6, 2012 – 8:38 am
Only the other day, Sinclair Davidson and I were debating the nature of bank fees and whether they were penalties. In that post, I noted the case of Andrews v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group [2011] FCA 1376 where customers of the ANZ were suing it in relation to a variety of fees the […]
August 15, 2012 – 8:49 pm
Sinclair Davidson at Catallaxy has written a post on excessive fees charged by banks, and said this: [The argument that the fees were designed purely to enrich the bank] is a bit hard to take. When you begin a banking relationship you normally sign a contract that includes the fees that you’ll pay for various […]
By Legal Eagle
|
Posted in Economics, Equity, Law, Society
|
Also tagged ANZ, bank fees, banking law, banks, Catallaxy, champerty, class actions, contract law, dishonour fees, Economics, freedom of contract, genuine pre-estimate, litigation funding, Lord Dunedin, Maurice Blackburn, penalties, Restitution, sinclair davidson, the market
|
The High Court has just handed down a case dealing with the question of the availability of an action for money had and received when certain contracts have been found to be unenforceable as a result of illegality: see Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Haxton [2012] HCA 7. Facts: The facts of the case are rather […]
By Legal Eagle
|
Posted in Academia, Equity, Insolvency law, Law, Restitution, Taxation
|
Also tagged action for money had and received, blueberry farms, Companies Act, contract law, Equuscorp, failure of consideration, illegality, investment schemes, loans, Peter Birks, prospectuses, restitution law, tax minimization, unjust enrichment, void contracts
|
Recently the High Court has had to decide when it was likely that a person might eat hot chips. Seriously. In Strong v Woolworths [2012] HCA 5, the unfortunate plaintiff slipped and fell on a hot chip which had been left on the ground outside Big W at Centro Taree Shopping Centre. She suffered serious […]
February 1, 2012 – 12:12 pm
In The Age today there’s an article about a couple with a severely disabled child suing an IVF practitioner in negligence: Debbie and Lawrence Waller love their 11-year-old son, Keeden, but they believe he should never have been born. Just days after Mrs Waller gave birth in August 2000 following IVF treatment, Keeden suffered a […]
By Legal Eagle
|
Posted in Children, Law, Motherhood, Parenthood, Pregnancy, Tort, Welfare
|
Also tagged Cattanach v Melchior, disability, Harriton v Stephens, Keeden Waller, negligence, public policy, tort, Waller v James, welfare, welfare state, wrongful birth, wrongful life
|
December 3, 2011 – 1:14 pm
The High Court has recently overturned the right to refuse to give evidence against one’s spouse at common law in Australian Crime Commission v Stoddart [2011] HCA 47. It’s a fascinating decision, as it represents a further very large crack in the crumbling notion that husband and wife are one person. As I’ve mentioned here, […]
By Legal Eagle
|
Posted in Feminism, History, Human/Civil rights, Law, Marriage, Personal liberty, Taxation
|
Also tagged australia, australian crime commission, common law, coverture, coverture marriage, criminal law, England, evidence, evidence law, History, husbands, Marriage, society, spousal privilege, stoddart, taxation law, wives
|
November 3, 2011 – 11:25 am
Retrospective legislation and the rule of law F A Hayek neatly summarises the rule of law as follows: Stripped of all technicalities [the rule of law] means the government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand — rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority […]
By Legal Eagle
|
Posted in Australia, Immigration, Law, Politics, Public Policy, Society, Taxation, The Left, The Right, Welfare
|
Also tagged australia, Australian Federal government, Australian politics, FA Hayek, Heydon J, House of Representatives, Immigration, joseph raz, legal rights, Migration Act, payara, poniatowska, retrospective legislation, rule of law, Senate, Social Security Administration Act
|
September 2, 2011 – 8:32 am
[This is (I hope) a more polished take on the High Court’s Malaysian Solution case, with the benefit of further reflection. It also attempts to explain just why the Federal Government thought they had such a strong case.] Also cross-posted at Online Opinion. All of Australia is buzzing with the news that the High Court […]
By Legal Eagle
|
Posted in Australia, Immigration, Law, Media, Politics, Society
|
Also tagged administrative law, asylum seekers, Australian Labor Party, Australian politics, Australian Prime Minister, French CJ, Immigration, immigration detention, international law, Julia Gillard, jurisdictional fact, Malaysia, Malaysian solution, Migration Act, Nauru, Pacific solution, Politics, Refugee Convention, refugees, statutory interpretation, UNHCR
|
August 31, 2011 – 2:40 pm
Just handed down at 2:15pm today: the High Court has declared the Malaysian “Solution” to be illegal in Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] HCA 32. I shall shamelessly reproduce the High Court’s summary of reasons available on their site — more detailed commentary (I hope) to follow [on which, see UPDATE […]
By Legal Eagle
|
Posted in Immigration, Law
|
Also tagged asylum seekers, Australian Labor Party, Australian politics, deportation, High Court, Immigration, Julia Gillard, Law, Malaysian solution, refugees, visas
|