Supreme Court Library Queensland - Queensland Legal Updater
Supreme Court Library Queensland - Queensland Legal Updater

A selection of legal developments for the period:

03 January - 09 January 2017


Pinter v Pinter & Anor [2016] QSC 314

Douglas J

EQUITY - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - UNDUE INFLUENCE AND DURESS - PRESUMPTION OF UNDUE INFLUENCE FROM RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES - where a husband and wife, Eduardo Pinter and Giacomina Pinter (the parents), had two children: Marcello Pinter (first defendant) and Giuliano Pinter (plaintiff) - where the parents sold a block of flats that they owned at Mooloolaba to the first defendant and his wife, Marisa Pinter (second defendant), in exchange for a half interest in a new house that was to be constructed by the defendants in Robertson and in which the parents and the defendants were to live - where the parents lived in the house and were cared for by the defendants for a number of years before they needed nursing home care - where the parents each executed an enduring power of attorney appointing each other and the plaintiff and the first defendant as attorneys - where Giacomina executed the transfer of the Mooloolaba flats in her own right and in her capacity as attorney for Eduardo - where the plaintiff alleges that Giacomina lacked capacity at the time she signed the transfer as she was aged approximately 75 years of age and suffering from dementia and impaired cognition - whether there was a statutory presumption under s 87 of the Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (Qld) that Giacomina was induced to enter the transaction by the first defendant's undue influence.

Articles and Speeches

David Hamer, 'Tendency Evidence in Hughes v The Queen: Similarity, Probative Value and Admissibility'. (2016) 38(4) Sydney Law Review 491 - 503

Hughes v The Queen is concerned with the admissibility of evidence of other allegations as tendency evidence in a child sexual assault prosecution. The appellant argues that the other allegations must share distinctive similarities with the charged offence to satisfy the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 97 requirement of ‘significant probative value’.

Pascal Wirz, 'Imprisonment for Hard Core Cartel Participation: A Sanction with Considerable Potential'. (2016) 28(2) Bond Law Review 89 - 113

To deter hard core cartel activity, the sanctions imposed on cartelists must produce sufficient disutility to outweigh what the cartelists expect to gain from cartel participation. Considering the limitations of financial penalties, increasing attention has been given to the use of non-monetary measures against corporations as well as individuals.

Professional Development

Queensland Practice Management Course

FMRC - : 21 February 2017 - 23 February 2017

Time: 8.30am to 6.00pm

The three day FMRC Practice Management Course has been designed to meet the requirements of the Queensland Law Society for solicitors seeking a Principal Practising Certificate.

Media Releases

No new Media Releases have been selected this week.

Library News and Events

New Titles

Aldridge's powers of attorney

Geoffrey Schindler and Susan Sherry.
London : Sweet & Maxwell, 2016.

Family provision in Australia

John De Groot and Bruce Nickel.
Chatswood, NSW : LexisNexis Butterworths, 2016.

View a complete list of new titles.

Library News

No new Library News have been selected this week.


This is a free service provided by the Supreme Court Library Committee and the staff of the Library. It is compiled with the assistance of willing volunteers and friends of the Library. It is not necessarily compiled by legal practitioners. This service does not provide legal advice. As this service is often prepared on an urgent basis, it is not checked or verified and may well be found to contain errors or omissions.

The Supreme Court Library Committee, the staff of the Library and the volunteers involved in the preparation and distribution of this service do not assume any responsibility to any person for the accuracy or completeness of any information, material, product or services contained in this service. This service is provided only on the basis that readers will assume full responsibility for making their own assessment of the information provided. Readers should not rely upon this service, but should verify from original sources the accuracy of any relevant statements, information or representations contained in this service and confirm whether or not there has been any relevant error or omission.

The Supreme Court Library Committee, the staff of the Library and the volunteers involved in the preparation and distribution of this service will have no liability, whether in contract, tort or otherwise howsoever (apart from any mandatory statutory exception of exclusion), to any person whatsoever for any error or omission (whether negligent or otherwise) concerning any statement, information or representation arising from the content of this service or for any other reason.