The Supreme Court of Victoria has found that a one-off special purpose company, incorporated for the sole purpose of carrying out a property development, was “in the business of building residences”, and therefore the Security of Payment Act applied to the dispute.
Can you prefer one creditor by arranging a third party loan, the proceeds of which are paid directly to that creditor, without the arrangement being void against your trustee in bankruptcy? “Yes” says the Full Federal Court – thus confirming an important distinction between personal and corporate insolvency.
This article provides a comprehensive summary of the three Practice Guidelines that have been published by the Financial Services Royal Commission.
This article will give some practical guidance to the Financial Services Royal Commission, its powers, processes and procedures. The next article (Part 2) provides a comprehensive summary of the three Practice Guidelines that have been published by the Financial Services Royal Commission.
In Falzon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the High Court dismissed a challenge to the validity of s 501(3A) of the Migration Act. The Court held that the provision, which provided for the cancellation of a visa in certain circumstances, did not confer judicial power on the executive.
The High Court has handed down its decisions in the second and third cases concerning Security of Payments legislation to come before it. In Probuild v Shade Systems and Maxcon v Vadasz, the High Court affirmed that in New South Wales and South Australia, review is available for jurisdictional error but not for error of law on the face of the record.
The New South Wales Court of Appeal has held that a brothel owner’s failure to disclose an association with a bikie gang before the grant and renewal of insurance policies for the brothel did not entitle the insurer to decline cover.
The Federal Court found that the manufacturer of Nurofen had breached the Australian Consumer Law in a decision that emphasises the importance of an adequate scientific basis when engaging in comparative advertising of a scientific nature.
Where seeking to recover land on the basis of a constructive trust arising from proprietary estoppel, when does that constructive trust arise? Does it arise when a court makes a declaration to its effect, or when the relevant cause of action accrues? And when should the court consider a lesser remedy instead of declaring a trust?
The Full Court of the Federal Court recently clarified the way in which the “side by side comparison” of trade marks is to be carried out in order to determine whether the two marks are substantially identical.
The clarification occurred in the context of an opposition to the registration of a trade mark pursuant to s 58 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (TMA). However, the Full Court’s clarification will have broader relevance as the question of whether a mark is substantially identical to another arises in several other sections of the TMA (for example sections 44, 120 and 122).
The WADA Code prohibits athletes from associating with others who are serving a doping ban, or otherwise been sanctioned for conduct that would constitute a violation under the Code.
Do we now live in an age where we will find athletes banned from sport due to who they know, rather than what they do?
This recent decision illustrates how a broad approach to the slip rule allowed the bank to amend its order for possession, despite the same error appearing in the description of the security property on a notice sent under the mortgage, and also in the bank’s statement of claim.
A Federal Court class action, brought on behalf of Indonesian seaweed-farmers, nudges the outer bounds of the Australian class action regime – both geographically and temporally.
Section 1305 of the Corporations Act is an important tool for practitioners in debt and loan recovery. The section provides that books and records of a company are (1) admissible, and (2) prima facie proof of any matter recorded therein (eg a loan). However, a recent NSW case is a reminder the presumption is rebuttable.