Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Gay and lesbian discrimination
Discrimination against gay and lesbian
Discrimination against gay and lesbian
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Gay and lesbian discrimination
Markan v Bar Association of Queensland Case Note
Citation
Markan v Bar Association of Queensland (No3) [2014] QSC 225
Procedural History
Markan's ('P') appeal was refused second time in a row and brought proceeding against the Crime and Misconduct Commission, the Queensland Police Service and Bar Association Queensland ('D'). He also brought an appeal in the Court of Appeal but it was dismissed.
Facts
P was convicted by grievous bodily harm of his colleague and sentenced four years imprisonment with parole date fixed after two years. He hired two solicitors who are engaged with Mr Tim Carmody SC (present Chef Justice)and Mr Paul Smith (Honour)of counsel but both appeal were dismissed by the High Court.
He sued BAQ for breaching
…show more content…
Whether the P has instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings (Is P a person that defined in the dictionary of the Vexatious Proceeding Act 2005?).
2. What is the threshold of vexatious proceedings (Frequency: P is a person frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia? ).
Arguments
P claimed with six ground of appeal against the BAQ:
1. The trial judge was selected without any consideration of the case.
2. Failure to recall the complainant for a medical whiteness could examine him.
3. The police officer ignored asking of an investigation of the discrepancy between the complaint's claim and the result of the medical exam. Moreover, the police wrongly concluded. the event and not allow appeal this acting in self-defence.
4. There were errors occurred by the trial judges in the course of summing up.
5. Using Irrelevant reference by the complainant during trial (using previous conviction of cyber-crime).
6. The evidence submitted by the complaint was fabricated evidence.
D argued that:
The proceedings made by Markan was not a reasonable claim which was previously dismissed by the trial judges. He is a person and his behaviours was defined under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld), if he does not stop, BAQ strikes out against his
The applicant Mr. Arthur Hutchinson was born in 1941. In October 1983, he broke into a house, murdered a man, his wife and their adult son. Then he repeatedly raped their 18-year old daughter, having first dragged her past her father’s body. After several weeks, he was arrested by the police and chargedwith the offences. During the trial he refused to accept the offence and pleaded for innocence. He denied accepting the killings and sex with the younger daughter.
Just and equitable legal outcomes to evaluate the case include of many expectations that may be met, the outcome of the case was discovered by fair trial which includes correct punishment theories and procedures, Justice Roslyn Atkinson met these through the trial also making it equitable because the punishment theories were applied to the offender Brett Peter Cowan. Punishment options and procedures in Queensland met the current needs of the society throughout this
The case went back to the Supreme Court of Queensland where Justice Moynihan gave a presentation of the facts of the case.
in the country can afford the best lawyer and it is true to say that
Q1 THE COURT/S IN WHICH THE CASE WAS HEARD (OUTLINE THE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT)
The decision in Equuscorp is significant, as it has made clear several principles that were once ambiguous under Australian law. It ratifies that restitutionary remedies are unavailable for a claim for money had and received where recovery would reduce coherence in the law. Furthermore, Equuscorp has confirmed that a bare cause of action can be assigned where the assignee has a genuine commercial interest in its enforcement.
Syme, D. (1997). Martin Bryant's Sentence- What the judge said, Retrieved 5 July, 2003, from http://www.geniac.net/portarthur/sentence.htm. 7. The Australian Encyclopaedia.
As police officers own right to carry out an investigation on the suspect, public arise concerning on negligent investigation. In the Hill v. Hamiton-Wentworth case, Mr. Hill was accused robbery and then was proved innocent. Mr. Hill filled a lawsuit against police officers on the tort of negligent investigation, and the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Hill’s appeal. Moreover, a majority of the court recognizes there is a tort of negligent investigation in Canada, but Mr. Hill was investigated under code of care and no tort of negligent investigation during his investigation. While the argument of minority believes the tort of negligent investigation should be recognized in Canada, and the police had been negligent, the argument of minority is more compelling than majority.
R N Howie and P A Johnson, Annotated Criminal Legislation NSW, 2011-2102, (Lexis Nexis Butterworths 2012) 17769-1774
The General Court. "General Laws." : CHAPTER 265, Section 37. 2014. Web. 20 Apr. 2014. .
At the behest of Solicitor General John Les, an inquiry was launched in February o...
from the victim and the scene of the crime be tested and his appeals were denied ("A.B. Butler").
The name of the parties are (appellant) commissioner of the police of the metropolis,(respondent) Mr. Michael Rottman . The judgment has been held in the house of lords. The judges on this were- Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton and Lord Roger of Earlsferry. The barristers and solicitors in this case were, Mr. Perry, on behalf of the appellant and Miss Montgomery, for the respondent. The date of the judgment was 16th may 2002.
It was argued by Cheung the reference by Lord Scott in Gamlestaden is still a summary of principles derived from Re Chime Corp. It is submitted that the reading of the case of Gamlestaden as it is does not state any criteria to allow corporate relief in unfair prejudice petition but rather the decision just endorsed that the court “may make such order as it thinks fit for giving relief in respect of the matters complained of” under an unfair prejudice petition. This could be a cautious approach not to restrict the ability of the court to may make such order as it thinks fit which would not be available if a test is introduced.
The fundamental purpose of the requirement that an originating process (“OP”) be served by personal service, prior to the commencement of proceedings, is to promote procedural fairness and natural justice . This essay will examine personal service in the context of civil procedure and the governing procedural rules pertaining to the personal service of an OP in New South Wales , as outlined in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) ("UCPR"). To avoid doubt, unless the context indicates otherwise, “defendant” and “claim” shall include the singular and the plural as an OP may comprise of multiple defendants and/or multiple claims.