Homepage

Arbitration: Temporary stay of related court proceedings

In exceptional circumstances, a court exercising its inherent jurisdiction will temporarily stay its proceedings pending the hearing and determination of a related arbitration between one of the parties to the court proceedings and a third party (say, an insurer) if there are compelling case management considerations justifying that course.

Court approval of settlements in liquidations

The Supreme Court has confirmed that declarations can be made approving settlement payments and the mere fact that a liquidator has acted on incorrect advice will not preclude a settlement payment being regarded as an expense “properly incurred” for the purposes of s 556(1)(a) of the Corporations Act.

Unreasonableness and illogicality: a tale of two grounds

In recent decisions of the Federal Court (Wigney J) and the NSW Court of Appeal (Bathurst CJ), unreasonableness jurisprudence has been relied on to reject the argument that the “illogicality” ground of judicial review is solely concerned with the end result, as opposed to findings or reasoning “on the way”.

“Procedural” decisions and procedural fairness

The High Court has confirmed that the making of a “procedural” decision to consider exercising a non-compellable discretion to either grant a visa or to permit a further application for a protection visa (which decision has the effect of prolonging the mandatory detention of those affected) gives rise to an obligation to accord procedural fairness.

“When Ambush Marketers smile at me, I go to Rio”: Protected uses of Olympic Insignia

Association with the Olympic brand is a marketer’s dream. Through national and international law, the Olympic Movement is afforded considerable protection against the practice of “ambush marketing” and unauthorised uses of Olympic Insignia. Recently, the Federal Court had opportunity to consider the scope of protection afforded in AOC v Telstra.

Equitable estoppel – what must be shown to establish the equity?

In Crown Melbourne Ltd, the High Court held that a statement that lessees “would be looked after at renewal time” did not give rise to an estoppel in favour of the lessees. The judgments of the majority members of the Court should not distract attention from, or suggest a confinement of, the broad inquiry involved in assessing a claim of promissory (or proprietary) estoppel.