Rohan Armstrong in Townsville, Queensland | Lawyer & law firm

Rohan Armstrong

Locality: Townsville, Queensland

Phone: +61 409 278 251

Address: Cullinane Chambers Level 1, 63-71 Wills Street 4810 Townsville, QLD, Australia

Website:

Likes: 43

Add/Update information

Reviews

Tags

• Lawyer & law firm

01.05.2022 The High Court of Australia handed down a decision at the end of March 2017 of significance to barristers and solicitor-advocates. The court held that advocates' immunity from suit does not extend to negligence in failing to advise a client about an offer to settle a claim before rejecting it and proceeding to trial. The reasonableness of the advice is to be assessed at the time the offer is made, not at the date of judgment. Kendirjian v Lepore [2017] HCA 13. This follows the Attwells decision in 2016 that held that advocates' immunity from suit does not extend to negligent advice which leads to a compromise of the proceeding.

11.04.2022 The Federal Court of Australia has issued mandatory injunctions against internet service providers requiring them to take reasonable steps to disable access to various online locations that infringe or facilitate the infringement of copyright. The 8 Applicants are various copyright holders in movies including Disney, Paramount, Fox, Universal, Warner Bros and Columbia. The 50 Respondents are all ISPs including Telstra, TPG, Optus, IINET and others. The target locations are... mostly pirate and torrent sites. The orders mandate compliance by the ISPs taking these steps: (a) DNS Blocking in respect of the Target Domain Names; (b) IP Address blocking or re-routing in respect of the Target IP Addresses; (c) URL blocking in respect of the Target URLs and the Target Domain Names; or (d) any alternative technical means for disabling access to the Target Online Locations as agreed in writing between the applicant and a respondent. Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2016] FCA 1503 (15 December 2016) See more

31.03.2022 Lovely surprise waiting for me when I arrived at the office today.

30.01.2022 This week's High Court case confirms that a solicitor instructed to draw a will has a duty to "ensure that the client gives consideration to the claims that might be made upon his estate before giving final instructions as to his testamentary dispositions." However, the solicitor does not have an implied duty to advise the client how potential claims on the estate can be defeated by the use of inter vivos property transactions. Badenach v Calvert [2016] HCA 18 (11 May 2016)

23.01.2022 Tonight's High Court note is about a tragic case for damages for personal injury arising from the crash of a Robinson R22 helicopter. The pilot was killed and the passenger was seriously injured. A bolt on a flexplate had lost the correct tension leading to catastrophic failure of the aircraft. The bolt had not been correctly assembled by maintenance workers three months before the crash. The fault had not been detected upon two subsequent 100 hour servicing intervals by ...other maintenance workers, nor by the pilot. Robinson was sued because its maintenance manual was allegedly deficient in its instructions to maintenance personnel about checking the torque on the bolts. The trial judge found for Robinson. The Qld Court of Appeal overturned the original decision (2-1). The High Court (5-0) allowed the appeal, finding in favour of Robinson that (a) the manual was not deficient and (b) even if it was deficient, the accident was not caused by such deficiency because the maintenance workers in this case did not refer to the manual anyway. The High Court was critical of the majority of the Qld Court of Appeal noting "... a court of appeal should not interfere with a judge's findings of fact unless they are demonstrated to be wrong by "incontrovertible facts or uncontested testimony", or they are "glaringly improbable" or "contrary to compelling inferences"...in this case they were not." (Citing Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118) Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated v McDermott [2016] HCA 22 (8 June 2016) See more

22.01.2022 Off to Brisbane for the weekend course Cross Examination of Expert Witnesses at BAQ

20.01.2022 An important principle of the criminal justice system is the right to a trial by jury for indictable offences. In recent years the Australian States and Territories have enacted laws that allow certain indictable offences to be tried by a judge without a jury. The High Court has now held that indictable offences against Federal laws must be tried by jury even in State courts as State laws conferring rights to judge alone trials in these cases are inconsistent with the const...itutional right to a jury trial. In this case the accused wanted a judge alone trial, having been charged with "...performing services in New South Wales for another person with the intention of supporting or promoting the commission of an offence ... as the entry by that person into a foreign State, Syria, with intent to engage in armed hostilities in that State." Alqudsi v The Queen [2016] HCA 24 See more

19.01.2022 The High Court of Australia handed down a decision this week of significance to barristers and solicitor-advocates. The court held that advocates immunity from suit does not extend to negligent advice which leads to an agreed settlement. The immunity from suit is confirmed once again where the advocate (whether barrister or solicitor-advocate) is "engaged, as an officer of the court, in the exercise by the court of judicial power to quell a controversy." The court confirmed the comments of earlier cases that "the advocates immunity extends to "work done out of court which leads to a decision affecting the conduct of the case in court."" Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Limited [2016] HCA 16

16.01.2022 This weeks High Court case confirms that a solicitor instructed to draw a will has a duty to "ensure that the client gives consideration to the claims that might be made upon his estate before giving final instructions as to his testamentary dispositions." However, the solicitor does not have an implied duty to advise the client how potential claims on the estate can be defeated by the use of inter vivos property transactions. Badenach v Calvert [2016] HCA 18 (11 May 2016)

13.01.2022 Lovely surprise waiting for me when I arrived at the office today.

09.01.2022 Tonights High Court note is about a tragic case for damages for personal injury arising from the crash of a Robinson R22 helicopter. The pilot was killed and the passenger was seriously injured. A bolt on a flexplate had lost the correct tension leading to catastrophic failure of the aircraft. The bolt had not been correctly assembled by maintenance workers three months before the crash. The fault had not been detected upon two subsequent 100 hour servicing intervals by ...other maintenance workers, nor by the pilot. Robinson was sued because its maintenance manual was allegedly deficient in its instructions to maintenance personnel about checking the torque on the bolts. The trial judge found for Robinson. The Qld Court of Appeal overturned the original decision (2-1). The High Court (5-0) allowed the appeal, finding in favour of Robinson that (a) the manual was not deficient and (b) even if it was deficient, the accident was not caused by such deficiency because the maintenance workers in this case did not refer to the manual anyway. The High Court was critical of the majority of the Qld Court of Appeal noting "... a court of appeal should not interfere with a judges findings of fact unless they are demonstrated to be wrong by "incontrovertible facts or uncontested testimony", or they are "glaringly improbable" or "contrary to compelling inferences"...in this case they were not." (Citing Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118) Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated v McDermott [2016] HCA 22 (8 June 2016) See more

09.01.2022 Friday night again, time for a High Court note. This will interest insurance lawyers - the High Court confirmed that a Plaintiff can join a Defendants professional indemnity insurer to a claim after indemnity is rejected by the insurer, relying on s562 of the Corporations Act. CGU Insurance Limited v Blakeley [2016] HCA 2 (11 February 2016)

03.01.2022 Friday night again. Time for a High Court story, this time from 1938 in an oft-cited case of Briginshaw, well known to students of Evidence Law.. How times have changed. Briginshaw was an adultery case. Rich J said: In a serious matter like a charge of adultery the satisfaction of a just and prudent mind cannot be produced by slender and exiguous proofs or circumstances pointing with a wavering finger to an affirmative conclusion. The nature of the allegation requires as a matter of common sense and worldly wisdom the careful weighing of testimony, the close examination of facts proved as a basis of inference and a comfortable satisfaction that the tribunal has reached both a correct and just conclusion. Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336