Whose Mind Must a Judgment Actually Show? (Or Judicial Plagiarism)
A judge reproduced a lawyer’s submissions almost word for word. Two Commonwealth traditions have quietly answered why that matters.
Read MoreA judge reproduced a lawyer’s submissions almost word for word. Two Commonwealth traditions have quietly answered why that matters.
Read MoreOne judgment was ninety-four per cent copy-paste. How the keyboard killed judicial thought — and how to revive it.
Read MoreThe victim was the insured’s husband, riding to a work audit in his wife’s car. The insurer said the policy did not cover him, sat out the trial’s coverage fight, lost it, and then demanded the victim sue all over again. The Federal Court declined to oblige.
Read MoreThe insurer won a declaration against its own insured, then waved it at the crash victim like a writ of execution. Appeal No. 7 of Sa’Amran asked the question the order itself could not answer: whom does a section 96(3) declaration actually bind?
Read MoreThe victim won his judgment; the insurer’s answer was to sue him for asking to be paid. Appeal No. 6 of Sa’Amran ended the myth of the second lawsuit — and Chen Boon Kwee has since nailed the lid down.
Read MoreAn insurer raced to the High Court for a declaration that it owed nothing — before the trial court had decided whether its rider was even in the accident. It won. The victim then won his trial. Two judgments, one collision, and a paper judgment not worth the paper it is printed on. The Federal Court called it a serious error of law and fact — and a breach of ...
Read MoreSection 96(3) lets an insurer escape a victim’s judgment — but only if it gives notice, and gives it in time. In Appeals No. 2 and No. 3 of Sa’Amran, two insurers skipped that small step. The Federal Court showed them the price.
Read MoreTwo contradictory oaths, half the witnesses, the wrong court, and a declaration that came too late. Appeal No. 8 of Sa’Amran is a study in how an insurer loses a fraud case it never properly brought.
Read MoreFor the first time in ninety years, we are asking the right questions in the right order. Under s.96(2)(a) RTA 1987, must an accident victim personally notify the insurer before suing — or does that duty lie elsewhere? Ten questions, and the answers a century of Commonwealth law has been quietly supplying.
Read More