The Cornwell Case

In 2007, after litigation, Snedden Hall & Gallop was successful in an important and acclaimed case that came before the High Court in the matter of Cornwell v. Commonwealth of Australia.

The firm acted for Mr John Cornwell, a former Commonwealth Government employee who had been told that he was ineligible to join the Commonwealth superannuation fund because he was a blue-collar worker.  As a result, Mr Cornwell did not join the fund for many years.

Snedden Hall & Gallop brought a claim for damages for Mr Cornwell against the Commonwealth Government. The government defended the claim and after Mr Cornwell was successful in the ACT Supreme Court, the government appealed in the High Court, where Mr Cornwell was again successful.

Since then, Snedden Hall & Gallop has been assisting other former, and current, employees with similar matters.  Most of those affected were also blue-collar workers who worked in areas such as forestry, transport, and parks and gardens.  Eleven matters are scheduled for hearing in the ACT Supreme Court in November 2009 with another 100 or so cases waiting in the wings.

Recently the Commonwealth Government agreed to deal with other matters through mediation (which satisfactorily resolved some of the clients’ claims), and it is hoped that a similar approach will be taken with many of the future claims.

One of the major issues in each of the claims is the limitation period, making it essential for anyone considering a claim to seek legal advice early.

Overseas workers

Snedden Hall & Gallop has an experienced team of Migration Agents who have helped many clients negotiate the complicated and confusing Australian immigration system and laws.

The team recently aided a high profile Canberra business with some complex international issues (including the breakdown of order in Zimbabwe) so that the overseas workers it wanted to employ could enter the country.

Snedden Hall & Gallop is finding that an increasing number of clients have attempted to “go it alone” without the help of a migration agent and have found themselves lost in an imbroglio of confusing regulations and policy.

Human rights

The ACT Human Rights Act and Discrimination Act have created a system of law that is unique in Australian jurisdictions.

As a result, a number of Canberra businesses have turned to Snedden Hall & Gallop for the expert assistance of its Migration Team in comprehending their obligations under the Act and, where necessary, to respond to, and resolve, disputes arising out of them. This has included allegations of discrimination in the course of employment and in the provision of services.

Snedden Hall & Gallop’s Migration Team has a strong record of helping its clients reach practical, commercial solutions to what can be drawn-out and costly disputes.

Deadlock order

Snedden Hall & Gallop has recently secured a successful result for a local Canberra business under the cumbersome Unit Titles Act 2001 (“Act”).

The client (“owner 2”) was forced to apply to the ACT Magistrates Court for a “deadlock order” because the other member (“owner 1”) of a two-member owners’ corporation had, for a number of years (including before owner 2 had purchased its unit), placed tables and chairs on the common property. Owner 1 had done this without permission of the owners’ corporation, thus taking a benefit in preference to owner 2. Negotiations within the owners’ corporation were unable to resolve the matter and owner 2 sought a deadlock order. The order was granted, and owner 1 was forced to remove its tables and chairs and to pay costs.

Introvigne v Commonwealth of Australia

Snedden Hall & Gallop acted for a 15-year-old school boy who was injured in the playground of an ACT high school.  At the time of the injury, the teachers were attending an emergency staff meeting, leaving only one teacher on playground duty.  The boy was one of a group of lads who took advantage of the lack of supervision and began to swing on a school flagpole.  Part of the flagpole came away and hit the boy on the head, causing serious and permanent injury.  A claim was made on the boy’s behalf against the Commonwealth of Australia, which, effectively, controlled the authority running the school.

The claim was eventually successful in the High Court and stands as an important precedent in the question of the duty of care owed by teachers to students.  The Court held that the duty of care owed by a teacher required only that he or she take reasonable measures to prevent physical injury to a pupil.  It is not a duty to ensure against injury, but reasonable care is needed to prevent one.  In this case, the injury could have been prevented by providing proper supervision, ensuring that the flagpole was padlocked, and implementing a rule that the flagpole could not be used without the expressed authority of a teacher.