Bannister v State of Victoria [2012] FCA 1341

Bannister v State of Victoria [2012] FCA 1341

The compromise was approved because, having considered the settlement materials, the Court was satisfied that it was reasonable and in the applicant's best interests, principally in light of the litigation representative's assessment reached at mediation and the detailed opinion of independent lawyer Mr David Hancock supporting the settlement and the proposed Daniel Bannister Trust.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Disability Discrimination Proceeding / Application by Litigation Representative for Approval of Settlement
Outcome
Settlement approved; proceeding dismissed with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['disability Discrimination' 'minor Applicant With Disabilities' 'litigation Representative' 'approval of Settlement' 'independent Lawyer Opinion' 'confidential Settlement']
['human Rights' 'discrimination' 'civil Procedure'] ['disability Discrimination' 'minor Applicant With Disabilities' 'litigation Representative' 'approval of Settlement' 'independent Lawyer Opinion' 'confidential Settlement']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Disability Discrimination Proceeding / Application by Litigation Representative for Approval of Settlement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should approve a settlement agreed by the applicant's litigation representative under r 9.70 of the Federal Court Rules 2011." 'Whether the settlement was reasonable and in the best interests of the applicant.' 'Whether the opinion of Mr David Hancock could be treated as an opinion of an independent lawyer for the purposes of r 9.71(2)(c).']

Ratio Decidendi

The compromise was approved because, having considered the settlement materials, the Court was satisfied that it was reasonable and in the applicant's best interests, principally in light of the litigation representative's assessment reached at mediation and the detailed opinion of independent lawyer Mr David Hancock supporting the settlement and the proposed Daniel Bannister Trust.

Court Disposition

Settlement approved; proceeding dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The settlement between the parties recorded in the Settlement Deed dated 25 October 2011, which is exhibit "LB-3" of the affidavit of Lucy Bannister sworn 22 November 2012 ("the Bannister affidavit"), is approved.' 'The settlement monies are to be paid into a trust to be created named the Daniel Bannister Trust as...