The following changes have been incorporated in this Update:
[2-0500] Alternative dispute resolution
BJP1 v Salesian Society (Vic)  NSWSC 241 has been added at [2-0550] Enforceability of mediated agreements. The mediated agreement was held to be immediately binding and conclusive as the plaintiff’s solicitors were properly and adequately instructed and authorised to enter into a full and final settlement of the proceedings which they confirmed to the mediator and the defendant. Further, the plaintiff’s solicitors’ correspondence indicated they had entered into a “full and final settlement”.
[2-1000] Search orders
This chapter has been revised and updated. Showcase Realty Pty Ltd v Nathan Circosta  NSWSC 355 has been added at [2-1010] Search orders, which discusses the applicant’s required duty of candour in order that the court can be fully appraised of all relevant matters in the exercise of its discretion during an ex parte hearing. At [2-1020] Requirements, the case of Global Medical Solutions Australia v Axiom Molecular  NSWSC 1262 has been added, as an example of how the court weighs the considerations in determining that the requirements of r 25.20 have been made good. New paragraphs [2-1095] Setting aside a search order, which includes text explaining that search orders, that have already been executed, may be set aside ab initio if there has been bad faith or material non-disclosure and [2-1110] Costs in relation to search order proceedings have been added.
[2-2600] Stay of pending proceedings
Wigmans v AMP Ltd  HCA 7 has been added at [2-2680] Abuse of process. This case discusses the power to order a stay provided by s 67 of the Civil Procedure Act (CPA), and the fact it overlaps with the inherent power to stay a proceeding to prevent abuse of its processes.
This chapter has been reviewed and minor updates have been made, including the addition of the limitation period for child abuse at [2-3970] Table of limitation provisions in NSW.
[2-5400] Parties to proceedings and representation
Wigmans v AMP Ltd  HCA 7 has been added at [2-5500] Representative proceedings in the Supreme Court under a new heading Parallel representative proceedings in relation to the same controversy. The Supreme Court’s power to grant a stay under s 67 of the CPA of competing representative proceedings is not confined by a rule or presumption that the proceeding filed first in time is to be preferred. There is no “one size fits all” approach.
[2-5900] Security for costs
At [2-5965] Ordering security in appeals, the case of Murray John Carter v Ian Mehmet t/as ATF Ian G Mehmet Testamentary Trust  NSWCA 32 has been added. Security for costs in the sum of $40,000 were ordered in this case as the appellants had resolved to pursue an appeal which was more likely to fail than not. Nyoni v Shire of Kellerberrinin (No 9)  FCA 472 has also been added at [2-5990] Dismissal of proceedings for failure to provide security, where it was noted that an order for security for costs should not be used as an alternative way of striking out an appeal. Nor should it be used to push an appellant towards discontinuing an appeal.
[2-6900] Summary disposal and strike out applications
The case of Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning v Zonnevylle  NSWCA 232 has been added at [2-6920] Summary disposal. This case considered the power of NCAT to dismiss proceedings it considers to be vexatious under s 55(1)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.
[5-0800] The Mining List
This chapter has been substantially revised and updated to reflect legislative changes. The case of Mount Thorley Operations Pty Ltd v Farrugia  NSWDC 798 has been added at [5-0840] Redemption applications, as an example of the effect of a redemption on a latent injury.
[5-7000] Intentional torts
Young v RSPCA NSW  NSWCA 360 has been added at [5-7120] Malicious prosecution, where it was found a s 32 order under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (now repealed) did not constitute a finding that the charges were proven for the purposes of an action for malicious prosecution. A plaintiff must show the prosecution ended in favour of the plaintiff. If it did, it does not matter how that came about. It is sufficient if the plaintiff can demonstrate the absence of any judicial determination of his or her guilt.
[10-0300] Contempt generally
Minor amendments have been made to this chapter as a result of the repeal of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990.