Australia: Court Procedure

Queensland's special defences operate under strict timing rules that determine whether a plaintiff can recover costs when a defence emerges after litigation begins. Payment tenders made before proceedings and set-offs require specific legal foundations, and courts retain discretion over cost orders when defences crystallise mid-case.

An Uber driver assaulted during a road-rage incident at a pedestrian crossing has been denied compensation under NSW motor accident legislation. The Personal Injury Commission ruled that while the driver was technically still driving when punched through his window, the injury resulted from a deliberate criminal act rather than the use or operation of a motor vehicle, establishing important precedent for distinguishing between injuries occurring while driving versus those caused by driving.

In a Queensland claim, a defendant who misses the time to file a notice of intention to defend may face default judgment, provided the plaintiff proves service and follows the procedure for the relief sought.

What does it mean for a statement to be defamatory under Queensland law, and how do courts determine whether ordinary reasonable people would interpret a publication as damaging to someone's reputation? This analysis examines the legal test for defamatory meaning, the distinction between reasonable and strained implications, and the additional requirements plaintiffs must satisfy before commencing defamation proceedings.

When a Queensland money order is granted, creditors face critical decisions about which enforcement method will most effectively recover the debt. The choice between redirection warrants, earnings orders, property seizure, or enforcement hearings depends on the debtor's asset profile, liquidity, and the cost-effectiveness of each approach.

In Queensland, proving defamation requires establishing that a defendant published defamatory matter identifying the plaintiff to third parties, causing serious reputational harm. However, even when all elements are satisfied, claims may still fail due to procedural requirements, corporate plaintiff restrictions, or available defences under the Defamation Act 2005.

Separating from a partner is hard enough without also having to work out who’s staying in the family home. Some couples manage to keep living under the same roof for a while after separating, but that’s not always realistic, especially where things have turned hostile or there’s a risk of family violence.

Music festivals are high-energy and chaotic events with thousands of people in attendance – often involving alcohol and illicit drugs. For years, many young people in New South Wales were taken into tents and portable cubicles at music festivals for strip searches, told to remove their clothing, and made to squat, bend or lift body parts while police looked on. This process is obviously extremely demeaning, and forces people into extremely uncomfortable positions at the demand of authorities.

The New South Wales Court of Appeal examined whether a $50,000 award for future economic loss to a minor injured in a café accident met the evidentiary requirements of the Civil Liability Act 2002. The decision clarifies the stringent standards courts must apply when assessing damages for children, particularly regarding assumptions about future earning capacity and the need for concrete evidence rather than mere possibilities.