This case involved enforcement of a foreign award in Australia. Orders were made in aid of enforcement to prevent dissipation of shares in Australian companies owned by the award debtors. The award debtors were not permitted to re-agitate as a ground for resisting enforcement, a ground unsuccessfully agitated by them before the court at the seat of the arbitration to set aside the award.
In Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd & Ors v Armstrong Strategic Management & Marketing Pty Ltd & Ors  HCA 46 the High Court has confirmed that accidental disclosure of documents over which legal professional privilege is claimed will not amount to a waiver of such privilege. The appropriate course, in accordance with good practice management, will normally be for the recipient of the documents to return them to the solicitor of the party claiming privilege, and for that party to seek leave to amend its List of Documents. Failing to take such a pragmatic approach and raising technical legal points may in the circumstances be a breach of a party’s and its legal representatives’ obligations under the NSW Civil Procedure Act (and, it follows, the Victorian Civil Procedure Act).
An application for an inquiry into the conduct of receivers and managers of the assets and undertaking of a corporation based in Western Australia pursuant to section 423 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The decision highlights the importance of exercising commercial judgment when considering appointments.
In this case Mr Schmidt obtained a line of credit facility from Perpetual Trustees Australia Limited (Perpetual) and gave a mortgage over his home as security for the facility. Violet Homes Pty Ltd (Violet) was the mortgage originator and manager and processed the loan application on behalf of Perpetual. Mr Schmidt borrowed the money to invest in what he thought were property developments. He was duped into doing so by Mr Maddock, who has since been convicted of fraud. Most of the money advanced by Perpetual to Mr Schmidt was paid directly or indirectly to Mr Maddocks and was lost.
The power of the Court to modify the operation of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency.
The High Court of Australia’s judgment in TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v The Judges of the Federal Court of Australia  HCA 5 (13 March 2013) is the most important development in arbitration in Australia in the past 12 months, and has been keenly awaited by arbitration users and practitioners.
The High Court ruled that Google did not breach the Australian Consumer Law by acting as a ‘conduit’ to misleading content from sponsored links.
In this case, the High Court rejected an argument that to constitute ‘insider’ trading in contravention of the Corporations Act 2001, the information of which the accused person is in possession must be true and accurate. Justices Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell delivered a joint judgment and Justice Heydon delivered a separate judgment in which his Honour agreed with the plurality that the appeal ought to be dismissed.
Sharpe & Ors v PSAL Ltd  QCA 371 Facts The first appellant was an experienced investor and sole director of the second appellant. On 29 October 2009 the second appellant purchased a rural...
The Queensland Court of Appeal unsurprisingly declares that members of the committee of an incorporated association are entitled to access and copy its business documents.
This is the second case note of two cases in which subsequent owners of a home have brought proceedings in respect of defects which are said to have arisen after purchase of the home. In determining whether the owners had suffered loss, the Tribunal considered whether the owners had constructive knowledge of ‘reasonably observable’ defects, also introducing the concept of the ‘untrained eye’.
Bank of Western Australia Ltd v Abdul  VSC 222 – Justice Croft The Bank of Western Australia Ltd (Bankwest) sought to enforce a loan with the defendants Naseem Abdul (the first defendant) and...
This is the first case note of two cases in which owners of a home have brought proceedings in respect of defects which are said to have arisen after purchase of the home. The Tribunal considered the issue of whether knowledge by the purchasers of the defects prior to purchase affected their claims.
The United Kingdom Supreme Court has recently decided a case interpreting the ‘inherent vice’ exclusion under the widely used Institute Cargo Clauses (A) policy and the equivalent exclusion under the Marine Insurance Act 1906 (UK) (‘MIA’) in contradistinction to the insurance coverage term ‘peril of the sea’. Because the Marine Insurance Act 1909 (Cth) is for all intents and purposes identical to the MIA, and because of the wide customary usage of the Institute Cargo Clauses, the case is important to all practitioners in the fields of marine insurance and international trade law.