12 May 2022
The parties' agreement was that trustees would not pay for claimant's labour but would reimburse provable out-of-pocket expenses; the Official Assignee applied an appropriate and reasonable evidential standard and was justified in admitting $24,999.92 for specific invoices while rejecting the remainder; the Court confirms the Official Assignee's determination under s238/s239.
13 Apr 2015
Indemnity and increased costs were not justified because the substantive legal issue had merit and the case only became conclusively hopeless with appellate hindsight; although Pacific's conduct in inflating records was reprehensible and its discovery failures were sufficiently egregious to merit sanction, the appropriate sanction was reduction of the successful party's scale costs. The Court awarded Pacific costs on a 2B scale reduced by 50% and allowed the claimed expert disbursement narrowly as reasonably necessary.
19 Aug 2011
The 7 October 2009 letter did not contain an unequivocal promise or representation capable of founding an estoppel or of misleading a reasonable recipient under s 9 FTA; and Wiltshire Investments supplied sufficient affidavit evidence (including confirmation that Hats paid $1.4m by 30 March 2010) to establish the correct outstanding amounts, so summary judgment was properly entered and the appeals were dismissed.
14 Nov 2007
The Court upheld the Associate Judge's decision refusing to set aside the statutory demand because on the evidence Link had participated in the forecasting process and the contract terms (cl 1.3 read with cl 10) could fairly be construed to impose liability for components ordered in reliance on forecasts, substantial parts of the claimed debt (sums (a) and (b) and interest) were not genuinely in dispute, defects in some parts of quantum did not cause substantial injustice under s 290(5)-(6), and there was no evidence of solvency to rebut the coercive effect of the demand; accordingly the stat…