Insurance company uses legislation to reduce pay out, High Court Approves
In this case, there was a disagreement between Delor Vue Apartments and Allianz Australia Insurance Limited about an insurance contract. The main issue was whether Allianz could use section 28(3) of the Insurance Contracts Act to reduce the amount of money it would have to pay out to Delor Vue Apartments. The court decided that Allianz could use this section, but also that Allianz's decision to not use this section was not final and could be changed. Additionally, the court found that Allianz did not do anything wrong in how it acted during the insurance contract dispute. In the end, the court decided in favor of Allianz and Delor Vue Apartments had to pay the costs of the appeal.

Magistrate exceeds his jurisdiction in extending Family Violence Intervention Order
The case involves a dispute over the extension of a Family Violence Intervention Order (FVIO) by a Magistrate's Court. The issue is whether the court had the jurisdiction to extend the FVIO without an application or order for extension before the expiry date. The law provides that an FVIO expires 12 months after it is made unless extended by the court, and an application for extension must be made before the expiry date. In this case, the court extended the FVIO for two years after the expiry date, despite no application or order for extension before the expiry date. The court found that the magistrate's final orders were made without jurisdiction, and granted an extension of time to commence proceedings and quashed the magistrate's final orders. Costs were ordered in favour of the applicant and against the respondent, with no costs awarded for or against the Magistrates' Court or contradictor.

Court Rules in Favor of Egg Farming Investors: Essential Terms of Contract Agreed Upon

Two plaintiffs invested $6 million in an organic egg-farming venture, claiming they invested under agreements to issue shares to them in the operating and land-holding companies. They also seek units in a unit trust that holds the land where the egg-farming business was established. The court found that although there was no formal contract, the parties agreed on essential terms, and the parties' conduct was consistent with the agreements they had reached. The court ordered the companies to issue and deliver share certificates to the plaintiffs and correct their respective registers to record the correct shareholdings.

The third defendant is also ordered to issue 50 A class units in the Seasons Ranch Unit Trust to each of the plaintiffs and remove any record of the transfer of shares from the fifth defendant to the plaintiffs. The fourth defendant is also ordered to issue 50 fully paid ordinary shares to the plaintiffs and remove any record of the transfer of shares from the fifth defendant to the first plaintiff. The purported transfer of shares by the fifth defendant to the plaintiffs is declared void and of no effect. The orders are stayed for two weeks or until further order of the Court, and there is no order as to costs.

In the case of Riva NSW Pty Limited v Mark A Fraser; Fraser v Riva (NSW) (No. 4) [2022] NSWSC 1624 (28 November 2022), a dispute arose between Riva (a corporate entity) and the solicitors over the amount of costs owed to the solicitors for their work in previous litigation. Riva filed an appeal against the costs assessment. The dispute went through several court proceedings and two sets of proceedings in the Equity Division.
The court ruled in favor of the solicitors, ordering Riva to pay indemnity costs to the solicitors in both the Riva damages proceedings and the receiver proceedings, but only for the professional costs, counsel's fees, and disbursements incurred by the solicitors up to certain dates. The court will make supplementary orders after the parties provide schedules and submissions outlining their final costs claims.

QVB Pharmacy Awarded Damages in Misleading Conduct Case

In the case of QVB Pharmacy Pty Ltd v Le, the plaintiffs, QVB Pharmacy and Peter Galettis, sought damages from David Le for misleading and deceptive conduct in the sale of a pharmacy in the QVB Building in Sydney. The court found that Le passed on misleading information to the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs suffered a loss as a result. The court ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages and the 2017 financial statements provided to Galettis were false and inaccurate in several ways.
The court determined that the defendant had passed on misleading information to the plaintiffs which had caused them to incur a financial loss and as a result, judgement was awarded to the plaintiffs in the sum of $1,027,163.52, and the defendant was ordered to pay all of the plaintiffs' costs.

Tenants Win Battle for Relief Against Forfeiture of Lease: Landlord Ordered to Pay Damages and Costs

Appellant denied fair trial, convicted and sentenced for driving without a license

I read that the Constitutional change is to amount to three clauses:

1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice.

2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice may make representations to parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

3. The parliament shall, subject to this constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice.

This proposal 3. is oddly redundant because with respect to cl 3. s51(xxvi) of the Constitution already empowers Parliament to pass law with regards to "race" (the "other than the Aboriginal race" was removed in the 1967 referendum). Since Parliament already has a general power, why add a specific power?

Once we know that there's already a Constitutional power for Parliament to enact the Voice, why bother adding an expensive specific power to enact a body with no legal power to do anything other than to "advise"? 

Haig Jacob Arslanian Acquitted of Manslaughter in Brother's Death Following Self-Defense Claim
DPP v Arslanian is a case where the defendant, Hiag Jacob Arslanian, is charged with manslaughter in relation to the death of his brother, Dikran (David) Arslanian, on 5 October 2020. The prosecution filed a new indictment on 26 September 2022 for the charge of manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act, and the defence filed an application for trial by judge alone. The court assesses whether Hiag's response in shooting his brother was a reasonable response in the circumstances as he perceived them. The court found that Hiag had a history of at least two years of David being violent towards other family members, but most often violent towards Hiag. This history of violence, along with the fact that David had recently physically assaulted Hiag, caused Hiag to feel fear and led him to believe that shooting his brother was necessary to protect himself. As a result, the court found that Hiag's actions were a reasonable response in the circumstances.