Online file established – NSD701/2024 BRUCE LEHRMANN v NETWORK TEN PTY LIMITED ACN 052 515 250 & ANOR In view of the public interest in this matter, an online file has been established for this proceeding. Material will be placed on the file when it becomes available in line with procedures laid down by the Court. The online file can be found at: https://lnkd.in/gDX-BS4v #fca #matterofpublicinterest #onlinefile
Federal Court of Australia’s Post
More Relevant Posts
-
My weekend reading (Lehrmann's appeal grounds) is sorted... #defamationlaw #lehrmann #lehrmanndefamation #lehrmanntrial #appeal #ABC #networkten #newslifemedia #media #medialaw #communications #communicationslaw #publication #reputation #disputes #fca #federalcourtofaustralia #federalcourt #litigation #disputeresolution #socialmedia #auslaw #nswlaw #auspol #bartierperry #defodave
Online file established – NSD701/2024 BRUCE LEHRMANN v NETWORK TEN PTY LIMITED ACN 052 515 250 & ANOR In view of the public interest in this matter, an online file has been established for this proceeding. Material will be placed on the file when it becomes available in line with procedures laid down by the Court. The online file can be found at: https://lnkd.in/gDX-BS4v #fca #matterofpublicinterest #onlinefile
-
-
The signature rule originates from the case of L'Estrange v F Graucob [1934] 2 KB 294 which states that once a contract is signed, the parties are legally bound regardless of whether the document was read or not. There are several, insofar limited, exceptions to the rule. These are non est factum, misrepresentation or the document has no contractual effect. Non est factum is otherwise known as 'not the plaintiff's act.' The contract will be considered void for mistake if the party signed a document that was radically different from what they thought they were signing. The High Court in the matter of Petelin v Cullen (1975) 132 CLR 355 limited this scope to individuals who are either unable to read, or have a disability where they are required to rely on a third party's advice about the contents of the contract.
-
The remedies available against ex parte decree are: (2000 SCMR 296) i- An application under Order 9, Rule 13 i- A review application u/s 114 iii- An appeal u/s 96 iv- A proceeding to set aside the decree on the ground that it has been obtained by fraud etc. u/s 12 v- An application for re-hearing of the matter on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice(PLD 1972 Lah. 603 FB) vi- A revision may also lie (1995 CLC 516) vi- In appropriate cases the inherent powers of a court may also be attracted (PLD 2003 SC 625) or a writ may lie (1986 CLC 2515).
-
The remedies available against ex parte decree are:- (2000 SCMR 296) i- An application under Order 9, Rule 13 ii- A review application u/s 114 iii- An appeal u/s 96 iv- A proceeding to set aside the decree on the ground that it has been obtained by fraud etc. u/s 12 v- An application for re-hearing of the matter on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice(PLD 1972 Lah. 603 FB) vi- A revision may also lie (1995 CLC 516) vii- In appropriate cases the inherent powers of a court may also be attracted (PLD 2003 SC 625) or a writ maylie (1986 CLC 2515)
-
Non-jurisdictional AO proceeding with the assessment - decentralization of a case after centralization of case - absence of any order of transfer u/s 127 - The court noted the absence of a traceable transfer order u/s 127 despite claims of its existence on the ITBA system. The court emphasized that jurisdiction cannot be assumed without a formal transfer order, which aligns with the intent of Section 127 to facilitate administrative convenience and uphold the public interest. The High Court set aside the assessment orders passed by ITO Ward 21(1) due to the jurisdictional error, underscoring that no valid transfer u/s 127 had been documented. http://dlvr.it/T6ghPH #IncomeTax #Highlights #TaxLaws #TaxTMI
-
CPC O.7 R.11(d) – Remedy under O.7 R.11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein Court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision 2023 KHC OnLine 1015
-
-
Very useful article covering the recent Supreme Court clarification on secondary victims in clinical negligence matters for anyone interested!
On 11 January 2024, by a majority of 6 to 1, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) dismissed the claimant’s appeals in the conjoined cases of Paul, Polmear and Purchase. Duncan Batchelor, Claire Petts and Sheryl Gearing all discuss the implications of the recent UKSC judgment. Discover more here: https://bit.ly/3HfObAH
-
-
See below my note on the DIFC Court of Appeal decision of Sandra Holding Ltd & Ors v Al Saleh & Ors [2023] DIFC CA 003! The decision has potentially interesting ramifications on the issue of jurisdiction in the DIFC Court.
James Partridge has written a note on ancillary freezing orders and other interim measures in the DIFC Court in light of the DIFC Court of Appeal decision in Sandra Holding Ltd & Ors v Al Saleh & Ors [2023] DIFC CA 003. This decision, amongst other things, clarifies that the jurisdictional basis for ancillary freezing orders is as considered by Deputy Chief Justice Omar Al Muhairi in Childescu v Gheorghiu & Ors [2019] CFI 074, a matter on which Timothy Killen and James Partridge were instructed on behalf of the Claimant for the substantive claim (with Timothy Killen, led by Anneliese Day KC having acted in respect of the reflective freezing injunction application). https://lnkd.in/e5crj5sf
-
NCLT Rules, 2016 : - NCLT Rules, 2016 make a clear distinction between the ‘hearing’ of an appeal and the ‘pronouncement’ of the order. Rule 150(1) provides that after hearing the parties, the order may be pronounced either at once or soon thereafter, as may be practicable, but not later than thirty days from the final hearing. Further, Rule 151 indicates that a member of the bench may pronounce the order for and on behalf of the Bench. When the order is pronounced, the court master shall make a note in the order sheet to that effect. The language of the rules indicates that the pronouncement of the order is necessary and cannot be dispensed with. Refer Sanjay Pandurang Kalate v Vistra ITCL (I) Ltd [2023] GCtR 2068 (SC).
