Every now and then, you come across a case that is so amazing that you cannot do anything but sit back and stare in open mouthed admiration at the cojones displayed by the lawyers.
Trust Company of Australia Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2007] VSC 451 (20 November 2007) is such a case.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
Kiefel J has started with a bang
After putting her name on a joint unanimous judgment in Elliott v The Queen; Blessington v The Queen [2007] HCA 51 (8 November 2007) (a case regarding the confiscation of property that was in the joint name of a drug offender his spouse under the Victorian proceeds of crime legislation), Kiefel J seems to have found her voice by writing a judgment that all the High Court judges agreed with, except for Kirby J, who wrote his own concurring but separate opinion, just because he likes to be different.
The case is called Queensland Premier Mines Pty Ltd v French [2007] HCA 53 (15 November 2007). It an interesting case about whether the loan which is secured by a mortgage follows the mortgage upon assignment of the mortgage. Apparently, the answer is no. But I am not really sure how the mechanics of that is going to work out. More on this once I've given the judgment a close reading.
The case is called Queensland Premier Mines Pty Ltd v French [2007] HCA 53 (15 November 2007). It an interesting case about whether the loan which is secured by a mortgage follows the mortgage upon assignment of the mortgage. Apparently, the answer is no. But I am not really sure how the mechanics of that is going to work out. More on this once I've given the judgment a close reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)