Cases and authorities

TORTS – malicious prosecution – whether the police officer acted without reasonable and probable cause in charging the plaintiff – whether the police officer acted without reasonable and probable cause in maintaining the prosecution until taken over by the Director of Public Prosecutions – whether the police officer remained the prosecutor after the proceedings were taken over by the Director of Public Prosecutions – whether the police officer acted maliciously – whether the sole or dominant purpose of the police officer was other than the proper invocation of the criminal law TORTS – false imprisonment – whether the plaintiff was wrongfully arrested – whether the police officer suspected on reasonable grounds that the plaintiff had committed an offence – whether the police officer used his power under s 99 of LEPRA to lawfully arrest and detain the plaintiff TORTS – misfeasance in public office – whether the police officer committed an invalid or unauthorised act and did so maliciously – whether the police officer discharged the relevant power by arresting the plaintiff without a warrant and commencing proceedings against him – whether the police officer’s treatment of evidence demonstrated an intention to harm the plaintiff or that the police officer acted with reckless indifference to the harm that was likely to ensue

SUCCESSION – Family provision – Claim by adult grandson – Dependency on deceased – Membership of household of deceased – Claim not made out

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – Jurisdiction – Non-exercise of jurisdiction – Forum non conveniens – Connecting factors – Application of the principles in Voth v Manildra Flour Mills – Whether the Supreme Court of New South Wales is a clearly inappropriate forum – Where neither plaintiff nor defendant has any real or substantive connection with the forum – Where the facts giving rise to the cause of action occurred outside the jurisdiction of the forum – Where the cost of litigating a claim in an inappropriate forum will be unduly excessive PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – Applicable law – Pleading of foreign law – Pleading of New York Public Health Law

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – powers of public authority – power to commence legal proceedings – court attendance notices issued by officer of Independent Commission Against Corruption – notices not signed by registrar – officer acting as “public officer” within s 3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) – whether officer acting in an “official capacity” – whether powers and functions of Commission extend to laying charges under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) for matters the subject of investigation into corrupt conduct – whether power and functions of Commission extend to laying charges for breaches of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (NSW) STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – implied powers and functions of public body – powers necessary or reasonably incidental to the exercise of functions and powers – legislation to be read harmoniously

LAND LAW – co-ownership – statutory trust for sale – application by plaintiff under Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) s 66G – where plaintiff is in default of mortgage – where plaintiff contends that defendant has a 5% co-ownership – where defendant refutes ownership on the grounds they were “duped” – where the defendant has made a complaint to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority against the mortgagee – whether it is appropriate to appoint trustees for sale – trustees for sale appointed – no question of principle

JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS — Amending, varying and setting aside – Setting aside judgment entered in absence of party — UCPR r 36.16(2)(b) — Delay — Non-appearance — Where delay of nearly one year in bringing application and no good reason for delay — Whether bona fide defence on merits — Whether it would be contrary to public policy to enforce foreign judgment — Where foreign court does not recognise undue influence or Garcia unconscionability

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION — adjudication — judicial review — money paid into Court as price for interlocutory injunction — whether funds in Court should be paid to party with benefit of determination following judgment — relevance of appeal by party with benefit of determination

SUCCESSION — Executors and administrators — Rights, powers and duties – Competition to represent Estate – Financial interests of parties in maintaining litigation. SUCCESSION – Competing Wills – Appointment of Independent Administrator. CIVIL PROCEDURE – Simultaneous proceedings – Where litigant seeks for matters to be heard separately – Order for matters to be heard together. MORTGAGES AND SECURITIES – Interests of creditors – Where creditor provides reverse mortgage facilities – Where value of the estate property has significantly increased since deceased entered into reverse mortgage.

APPEALS – leave to appeal – leave not readily granted to challenge to discretionary exercise of power with respect to costs – as regards alleged error in not making a set-off costs order, not in interests of justice to grant leave given decision substantially founded on facts before primary judge, the position has since evolved, and it remains open to applicant to claim any amounts outstanding – applicant’s complaint also involves challenge to orders made in favour of persons not party to appeal proceedings – no point of principle or public important or reasonably clear injustice going beyond something merely arguable

COSTS – Application for stay of costs judgments in favour of the plaintiffs which are under challenge and where the defendants have costs orders against the plaintiffs which are also under challenge – Where, notwithstanding the lack of finality, the plaintiffs issued a garnishee order on a debtor of the defendants seeking enforcement of the full amount claimed – HELD: There should be no enforcement on either side until finality of costs orders on both sides – Plaintiffs’ judgment stayed and garnishee order set aside

CIVIL PROCEDURE — Applications for anti-suit injunctions directed to proceedings in Australian courts with co-ordinate jurisdiction — Cross-vesting — Transfer to Federal Court of Australia

COSTS — Party/Party — Payable out of a fund — Deceased estate COSTS — Party/Party — Bases of quantification — Indemnity basis — Ordinary basis COSTS — Party/Party — Exceptions to general rule that costs follow the event — Offers of compromise/Calderbank offers SUCCESSION — Contested probate — Costs — Offers of compromise

COSTS — Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) s 66G — Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 42.1 and 42.25 — SUMMONS — Proceedings by Summons for the appointment of trustees for sale of real property co-owned by a deceased estate and a company associated with the deceased during his lifetime — Where orders for sale are made after initial opposition by a co-executor who then does not oppose the sale, but only a forced sale on the basis she will cooperate in the sale — Where the orders for sale reserve the co-executor’s costs of the Summons — Where the co-executor seeks a portion of her costs of the Summons principally being the costs of an affidavit sworn by her to be paid out of the proceeds of sale of the property — Where the co-executor did not seek judicial advice that her opposition to the Summons was justified — Where she did not in fact cooperate in the sale — Where the affidavit could not have contributed in any meaningful way to the resolution of the Summons and where the amount claimed in any event is trivial — HELD: no order for payment out of the proceeds of sale should be made in her favour CROSS-CLAIM — Where the co-executor on behalf of the estate brings an unsuccessful cross-claim against the co-owner for equitable contribution of expenses met by the estate in relation to the property — Where there was clear and uncontested evidence that the deceased did not intend there to be any such contribution — Where the claim included amounts plainly not the subject of joint or coordinate liability — Where to prove the amount claimed the co-executor relied only on an admission arising from a non-answer to a notice to admit facts which admission did not establish any amount the subject of a joint or coordinate liability — Where the co-executor did not seek judicial advice that the estate was justified in bringing the cross-claim — Where the cross-claim amount is small and the cross-claim was unlikely to have yielded any benefit for the estate even if successful — Where the cross-claimant accepts that she should pay the cross-defendant’s costs of the cross-claim but seeks, and her co-executor opposes, indemnity from the estate, of a portion of her costs, excluding costs of, and incidental to, other cross-claims not persisted in — Where the cross-defendant to the cross-claim seeks its costs on the indemnity basis based on the non-acceptance by the co-executor of a Calderbank offer — HELD: the co-executor in substance, acted other than for the benefit of the estate and unreasonably in bringing and maintaining the cross-claim; she should not be indemnified in respect of any of her costs of the cross-claim out of the estate — HELD FURTHER: in context and given the terms of the Calderbank offer, its non-acceptance was not unreasonable to the extent of warranting an order for indemnity costs against her

CIVIL PROCEDURE – cross-vesting – Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW) – application for transfer of proceedings to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) – proceedings concern bankruptcy matters – orders for transfer made

EVIDENCE — Opinion evidence — Exceptions — Expert opinion — telecommunications and cell tower evidence — objection to parts of expert evidence and two expert reports — dispute as to the location of the accused — whether expert was qualified to express an opinion that the antenna that a mobile phone connected with was in fact the closest antenna and cell tower to its location — whether expert was qualified to express an opinion as to whether two mobile phones were in the same specific location

SUCCESSION — Testamentary promise — Deceased who was battling cancer with a prognosis of 3-6 months to live approaches sister for care — Plaintiff (sister) claims that the deceased promised her half of her estate if she looked after her — In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the plaintiff moved from Ocean Grove in Victoria, first isolating in Sydney for 2 weeks, and then travelled to Port Macquarie where she lived with and took care of the deceased for some 10 months, returning to Victoria for a period of 6 weeks — There was no written contract or document reflecting the alleged promise and there was limited contemporaneous documentary evidence generally — Deceased’s Will does not give effect to the purported contract but rather only gives by way of provision to the plaintiff items of personal effect, $20,000 and a motor vehicle, with the residue of the estate being divided between a cancer trust and a wildlife charity — Defendant, who is the executrix and a friend of the deceased, disputes the alleged promise was made or, if made, that it is enforceable — Defendant’s counsel contends that the plaintiff and witnesses in her case (her brother and her husband) have each reconstructed memories of material evidence — Plaintiff’s counsel postulates a case that the deceased harboured negative feelings for the plaintiff for leaving the deceased to look after their sick mother on her own, which led her to plot her revenge against the plaintiff in the form of not honouring the alleged promise CONTRACTS — Testamentary contract — Whether the deceased promised the plaintiff half of her estate if she looked after her — Deceased updated her Will one week after the alleged promise conversation but before the plaintiff arrived in Port Macquarie and did not make the alleged promised provision — Defendant’s witnesses assert the deceased never told them she was giving the plaintiff half of her estate — Submission by the defendant that these factors are inconsistent with the alleged promise conversation not accepted — Found that the alleged promise conversation occurred as asserted by the plaintiff and foreshadowed by the evidence of the deceased’s and plaintiff’s brother that the deceased mentioned her plan to offer the plaintiff the alleged promise — Found that the promise conversation constitutes an agreement — Submission that the terms of the agreement are not certain rejected — Submission that there was no real consideration rejected — Submission that there was no intention to create legal relations rejected — Held that there was a valid testamentary contract between the deceased and the plaintiff which was breached by the deceased ESTOPPEL — Equitable estoppel — Found that there was a clear and unequivocal promise — Discussion of whether an existing or future legal relationship needs to be assumed — Held that no assumption is required by the plaintiff — Found, in any event, that the plaintiff assumed there was an oral contract — Whether the plaintiff acted reasonably in reliance on the promise — Submission that the plaintiff’s reliance was artificial and unrealistic rejected — Whether the deceased knew or intended that the plaintiff would act in reliance on the promise — Found that the deceased knew or intended for the plaintiff to act in reliance on the promise — Whether the plaintiff’s reliance on the promise was to her detriment — Discussion of financial and non-financial detriment — Submission that the plaintiff acted in reliance to her detriment accepted — Whether the deceased acted unconscionably in not honouring the promise — Unpersuaded that the minimum equity is to enforce the promise according to its terms — Held that equitable estoppel is not made out RESTITUTION — Common counts — Claim for money had and received — Whether the plaintiff’s withdrawal of sums totalling $81,799 during the last days of the deceased’s life and after the deceased’s death were authorised by the deceased — Found that the payments were authorised in a conversation between the deceased and the plaintiff — Held there is no obligation for the plaintiff to pay the sums back into the estate EVIDENCE — Unchallenged and uncontradicted evidence — Submission that evidence which is unchallenged and uncontradicted must be accepted or acted upon — Discussion of authorities — Held there is no general rule that such evidence must be accepted EVIDENCE — Rule in Browne v Dunn — Alleged non-compliance with rule — Held no breach of the rule

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — The Judiciary — Federal jurisdiction — Exercise by State court — Where plaintiffs seek declaratory relief as to whether change of control event clause in licence agreements for use of trade marks will be triggered by restructuring plaintiff group of companies — Whether rights created by the licence agreements owe their existence to federal law — Whether federal or state jurisdiction involved in relation to relief sought in summons CONTRACTS — Remedies — Declarations — Whether declarations can be made about potential future engagement of change of control event clause in licence agreements for use of trade marks — Whether declarations would amount to an advisory opinion without a concrete factual basis

EVIDENCE — Discretions — Exclusion of evidence — Improperly or illegally obtained evidence — where the accused participated in two electronically recorded police interviews and body worn videos — whether the accused was a “protected suspect” when questioned by police — whether police believed that there was sufficient evidence that the accused committed the offences in question — statutory construction — whether the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighed the undesirability of admitting evidence — where balancing exercise undertaken — whether advantage taken of vulnerable person

SUCCESSION — Family provision — Extension of time to bring a claim — Deceased died in early 2011, survived (relevantly) by two daughters and the defendant (a brother) leaving an informal holograph testamentary document — From mid-late 2011 the brother and daughters sought and received legal advice regarding estate claims — Initially both daughters were jointly legally represented — In December 2011, informal Will proceedings were commenced and in July 2012 the holograph testamentary document was held to constitute the deceased’s Will — In February 2012, the elder daughter then having separate representation commenced and (in August 2013) settled family provision proceedings — Consent SMO asserted that defendant had served notices of the elder daughter’s claim on any person who may be an eligible person — Settlement approved — Plaintiff aware of her sister’s family provision proceedings, but contrary to assertion had not been served with a Notice of Claim — Plaintiff believes the defendant would subsequently provide for her and she received some ex-gratia provision from the defendant in 2014 and 2016/2017 — In early 2024, the plaintiff’s belief changed and she belatedly commenced a family provision claim — Held in all the circumstances no “sufficient cause” for proceedings to be brought out of time SUCCESSION — Family provision — Extension of time to bring a claim — Separate determination of issue SUCCESSION — Family provision — Extension of time to bring a claim — Policy purposes underlying extension of time provisions in family provision claims discussed — Extension principles discussed EVIDENCE — Cross-examination — Benefits include in certain instances contextualisation of events and understanding of reasons underlying decisions for certain actions and inaction SUCCESSION — Will construction — holograph Will leaving entire estate to defendant “to be dealt with as he sees fit. And at a later date for some such provision to be made by him for my daughters…” — Finding that Will did not create a legal obligation for the defendant to provide for the plaintiff and alternatively if it created an obligation to provide, it is too vague to be enforceable SUCCESSION — Family provision — Parties and affected persons — Forms — Notice of Claim — Service of a Summons and a Notice of Eligible Persons does not satisfy the purposes of service of a Notice of Claim — Practitioners encouraged to familiarise themselves with procedural requirements to avoid potential injustices SUCCESSION — Family provision — Notional estate — Determination of prior family provision claim and distribution of estate does not necessarily preclude property from subsequently being designated as notional estate — Discussion of criteria as to whether property is susceptible to being designated as notional estate

COSTS — Party/Party — General rule that costs follow the event — Proceedings discontinued or dismissed by consent

HIGH RISK OFFENDER – final hearing – high risk violent offender – application for extended supervision order – making of order and nature of some conditions contested by defendant – whether there is high degree of probability that the offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence if not kept under supervision under the order – extended supervision order imposed for two years with conditions – discussion about appropriate conditions

COSTS – costs order – interlocutory dispute – where undertakings are proffered that resolve the interlocutory dispute – no question of principle

CIVIL PROCEDURE – Administrative law – Judicial review – Stay application – Whether a decision of the Commissioner of Corrective Services NSW to change the placement of an inmate should be stayed or suspended pending the outcome of substantive proceedings – Whether an order to change the placement of an inmate constitutes a denial of access to the Court to conduct litigation – Where an inmate is ordered to be placed in a different correctional centre with more limited access to technology whilst involved in substantive civil proceedings – Access to computers whilst in a correctional centre for the purposes of conducting civil litigation

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Summary dismissal – self-represented litigant – applicable test for summary dismissal – no question of principle LAND LAW – Adverse possession – possessory application over Torrens title land ­­– issue to be determined at final hearing – no question of principle

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – review of Appeal Panel decision under Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) – whether jurisdictional error – whether Appeal Panel failed to accord procedural fairness – whether failure to consider and apply the correct legal principles – whether error was material – practical injustice ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – whether error of law on the face of the record – whether typographical error in Appeal Panel’s reasons for decision – where Appeal Panel provided its actual path of reasoning to enable conclusion without speculation WORKERS COMPENSATION – psychological injury – medical assessment – where dispute as to assessment of Whole Person Impairment – deduction for previous injury or pre-existing condition or abnormality pursuant to s 323 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act – decision of Appeal Panel to revoke and issue new medical assessment certificate

SENTENCING – manslaughter – unlawful and dangerous act – whether deceased consented to unlawful administration of prohibited drug – where co-offenders and deceased were engaged in manufacture of prohibited drug – drug supply – large commercial quantity – where co-offenders have significant subjective cases – Bugmy considerations and moral culpability – drug addiction – mental health SENTENCING – relevant factors on sentence – co-offenders – parity – where co-offenders engaged in two distinct courses of criminal conduct together – where aggregate sentence imposed for one co-offender and separate sentences imposed for another co-offender

WORKERS COMPENSATION — Medical assessment — Medical assessment certificate — Appeal against medical assessment certificate — whether second appeal to Appeal Panel available where no change to medical assessment certificate effected and no certificate of determination issued following decision of first Appeal Panel ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — judicial review — whether Appeal Panel misconstrued its jurisdiction — whether Appeal Panel denied Plaintiff procedural fairness in determining that it lacked jurisdiction

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW — letter of request — application for orders giving effect to letter of request issued by District Court of the Southern District of New York for the examination of and production of documents by an Australian resident — whether orders sought for improper collateral purpose — whether letter of request impermissibly seeks pre-trial discovery EVIDENCE — evidence on commission — consideration of s 33(6) Evidence on Commission Act 1995 (NSW) — meaning of “particular documents specified in the order” — whether permissible to order production of categories of documents in pursuance of letter of request

CORPORATIONS – directors and officers – directors’ duties – directors causing company to engage in fraudulent and unlawful practice – directors causing company to engage in commercial agreements and practices detrimental to company and beneficial to third parties in which directors had an interest – directors apprehending loss of control diverted business to third parties in which directors had an interest – whether directors breached obligations under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 181 and 182 – whether third parties involved in breach of ss 181 and 182 within the terms of s 79 – whether directors breached fiduciary duties CORPORATIONS – statutory construction – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 181, 182 – improper purpose need not be achieved – not necessary that director acts dishonestly – honest belief as to purpose only satisfied where belief is rational – unlawful conduct necessarily improper EQUITY – fiduciary duties – knowing assistance – liability of third parties under second limb of rule in Barnes v Addy – third parties owned or controlled by family members of fiduciaries – appropriate inferences as to knowledge of dishonest conduct of fiduciaries in absence of evidence to the contrary – no requirement of belief on part of the third party that conduct of fiduciaries was dishonest and fraudulent design – whether third parties operated independently of actions of fiduciaries

CORPORATIONS — Directors and officers — Fiduciary duties — Where directors of company resigned — Whether fiduciary duties of directors continued despite resignation — Whether the fact the company may not have been able to exploit commercial opportunity precluded a finding of breach of fiduciary duty by former directors EQUITY — Equitable remedies — Injunctions — Width of injunctive relief ordered against defaulting fiduciary and knowing assistant

CIVIL PROCEDURE – notices to produce under r 21.10 of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) – relevant to a fact in issue – justification for production concerns decision not impugned in summons – summons does not set out serious allegations invoked as basis for seeking documents – disputed documents not relevant to fact in issue CIVIL PROCEDURE – notices to produce under r 21.10 of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) – objection to production of documents or things – client legal privilege – whether waived for purposes of s 122 of Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – filing of document content of which influenced by views of an expert does not establish disclosure of those views, nor does expert’s agreement to be bound by expert witness code of conduct, nor does provision of joint expert report to court – no prima facie evidence to found alleged misconduct under s 125 of Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) CIVIL PROCEDURE – notices to produce under r 21.10 of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) – objection to production of documents or things – document prepared for purposes of or in course of or as result of conciliation conference for purposes of s 34(11) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) – s 34(11) enables production of documents to be resisted if relevant purpose dominant – protection ends when final version presented to commissioner for purpose of seeking s 34(3) decision

LEASES AND TENANCIES — Ejectment — Writ of possession — motion to stay execution of a writ of possession — where default judgment was granted — where tenant has real hardship — temporary order granted

CIVIL PROCEDURE – Discontinuance of proceedings – proper construction of UCPR r 12.1 - where there are co-plaintiffs who are separately represented in the proceedings – where one co-plaintiff seeks to discontinue proceedings – whether all plaintiffs are active parties in the proceedings pursuant to UCPR r 12.1 – whether UCPR r 12.1 permits a co-plaintiff to file a notice of discontinuance only in respect of their claims – whether notice of discontinuance filed by the second plaintiff is void – whether the Court should make orders dismissing the claims made by the second plaintiff – whether defendants consent to orders dismissing the second plaintiff’s claims.

COSTS — Party/Party — Court’s discretion — Whether indemnity costs should be ordered

COSTS — party/party — exceptions to general rule that costs follow the event — party seeking indulgence or dispensation of the court — special or different order — impecuniosity

CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – Application for leave to appeal – Possessing a shortened firearm without authority – Possessing an unauthorised firearm – Supplying a prohibited drug – Dealing with suspected proceeds of crime – Whether sentencing judge erred in finding that the principles relevant to sentencing arising from a background of deprivation did not apply to the applicant – Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 SENTENCING – Subjective considerations on sentence – Positive and stable upbringing with mother and grandmother – Extended family environment where violence, heavy drinking and drug use and supply observed and normalised – Commencement of alcohol and drug abuse – Countervailing influences – Offender not required to establish “profound” childhood deprivation – No point of principle

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – disciplinary proceedings against solicitor – whether Respondent a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll of Australian Lawyers – where Respondent convicted of participating in a criminal group, using a false document with the intention of inducing a person to accept as genuine and then to influence that person to exercise a public duty, and knowingly taking part in the supply of a prohibited drug – where Respondent served sentence by way of intensive correction order (ICO) – where ICO has expired – where Respondent opposes relief sought – whether Respondent likely to be unfit for the indefinite future – Court satisfied of unfitness to practice for the indefinite future

CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – Two offences of sexual intercourse without consent – Aggregate non-parole period greater than the sum of the two indicated non-parole periods – The totality principle applies to aggregate sentences – An aggregate non-parole period which exceeded the sum of the indicated non-parole period constituted error – Applicant resentenced

CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – importation of a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug – parity – “marked” disparity need not be “gross” or “glaring” – where the differences in roles and subjective cases warrant different sentences – whether the higher sentence imposed on the applicant gave rise to a justified sense of grievance – leave to appeal granted – appeal dismissed

CIVIL PROCEDURE – Application for leave to amend defence – proposed amendments futile – summary judgment for possession of land in favour of registered proprietor

CORPORATIONS – Arrangements and reconstructions – Schemes of arrangement or compromise – Application under s 411 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for orders convening meeting of members to consider and, if thought fit, to agree to proposed scheme of arrangement – Whether requirements to order scheme meeting are satisfied.

CORPORATIONS – Arrangements and reconstructions – Schemes of arrangement or compromise – Application under s 411 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for orders approving scheme of arrangement – Where formal requirements satisfied – Whether scheme of arrangement should be approved.

CIVIL PROCEDURE — Expert evidence – Leave to adduce –– the first plaintiff is the former wife of the second defendant and the other 5 plaintiffs are their children – the first defendant is the corporate trustee of their family trust – the first plaintiff and the second defendant divorced in 2016 and their matrimonial property dispute resolved by agreement in 2017 – under that agreement certain payments were made to the plaintiffs and the second defendant took sole control of the first defendant trustee company – the plaintiffs claim that the first defendant has failed to pay distributions from the family trust that were due to them and payable between 2004 and 2021 – the plaintiffs allege that this nonpayment was part of a dishonest and fraudulent scheme made between the first defendant and the second defendant to unlawfully divert trust income that would otherwise have been distributed to the plaintiffs – defendants contend that the plaintiffs have received full payment of amounts due to them from the first defendant – accounting dispute about what income is due from the first defendant to the plaintiff and whether what income that is found to be due has been paid to the plaintiffs – contentious allegations in the plaintiffs’ and the defendants’ evidence about what is due to the plaintiffs and whether it has been paid – plaintiff applies for liberty to adduce expert evidence – choice of the best methodology to resolve the accounting dispute in accordance with the objectives of Civil Procedure Act 2005 Part 6. CIVIL PROCEDURE — Pleadings — Amendment – proceedings within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for relief brought on behalf the beneficiaries in relation to the administration of a trust – defence pleads that the claim is not maintainable because of the 2017 settlement made and approved under Family Law Act 1975 s 90D and 90G – reply joins issue as to whether the 2017 settlement should be set-aside under the Family Law Act s 90K for fraudulent nondisclosure – issue raised of the Court’s own motion – whether an issue within the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and not the Supreme Court should be struck out to avoid the raising of false issues at trial or whether it may be permitted on terms requiring the cross-vesting of applicable Family Law Act jurisdiction for the proceedings in this Court.

LAND LAW – possession of land – where plaintiff as registered proprietor had permitted son to occupy premises – where attorneys under power of attorney brought proceedings – where challenge to right of attorneys to bring proceedings - where the registered proprietor required possession of the property to meet ongoing expenses – reliance by defendant on promise to leave property to him in plaintiff’s will – no defence to claim for possession

CIVIL PROCEDURE – transfer of proceedings – application to transfer proceedings from Supreme Court to Land and Environment Court – orders made

HIGH RISK OFFENDERS — extended supervision orders — unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence — final hearing — existing Extended Supervision Order imposed — extension of two years — significant history of sexual offending — previous breaches of terms of Extended Supervision Order — defendant with intellectual disability — Conditions expressed in more easily understood terms

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION — Adjudication — Judicial review — Whether adjudication was affected by jurisdictional error — Whether enforcement of the determination should be stayed even if the determination was not affected by jurisdictional error ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Jurisdictional error — Whether adjudicator failed to duly ‘consider’ relevant considerations under s 22(2) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) — Whether procedural unfairness established

CORPORATIONS – management and administration – meetings – where quorum requirement will not be satisfied for meeting of members – whether an order under s 249G required to convene a meeting of members because of impracticability.

CIVIL PROCEDURE – pleadings – application to strike out pleadings – where proceedings were brought for negligence and nuisance – where it is claimed that the statement of claim is confusing and embarrassing and do not adequately plead cases pursued including for pure economic loss – motion dismissed

CIVIL LAW – high risk offender – application for 18 month extended supervision order – preliminary hearing – interim supervision order – application of statutory test – whether supporting documentation if established would justify the making of an order – assessment of risk – consideration of authorities – extremely serious sexual offences committed when the defendant was 24 – defendant now 40 – where two year extended supervision order about to expire – positive but not perfect progress towards rehabilitation – reduction in statistical assessments of chances of recidivism – no recent record of violence or sexual offending – assessment of response to parole and current supervision order – where only recent offences arose from disobedience to supervision order and directions – defendant in positive relationship with supports in place – where no relaxation in strict conditions like electronic monitoring and weekly scheduling – where police targeted defendant because of ankle bracelet – where defendant believed racial component – “hero complex” or tying to help – demonstration of increased maturity and capacity to regulate emotions – summons dismissed