This note addresses Justice Beach’s findings on the applicant’s liability case in TPT Patrol Pty Ltd v Myer Holdings Ltd.
Beach J largely upheld shareholders’ claims that Myer had breached continuous disclosure obligations and engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, also concluding that they could rely on market-based causation. However, his Honour dismissed the proceeding. How? This note and others to follow seek to unpack the issues.
The circumstances giving rise to the claims against the insolvent investment and financial services company for breaches of continuous disclosure obligations in its dying days are so unique that the judgment is also likely to fade into unreported oblivion. There are, however, a couple of aspects that are of interest.
A rare case of rectification which arose because, two years after the sale of a half share in a motel business, the parties realised that their sale agreement had left $6m of debts ‘up in the air’.
The Court of Appeal has clarified the application of the unfair preference regime to payments by third parties to creditors at the direction of the debtor. In short, to be ‘from’ the debtor, the payment must diminish the assets available to its other creditors. Merely being related parties will not be sufficient.
The 2020-21 Federal Budget papers released on 6 October 2020 contained a potentially significant measure relating to the carry-back of company income tax losses to prior years, as explained in this note.
The Supreme Court of Victoria recently delivered judgment in the matter of Redstar Transport Pty Ltd (in liq). The case provides helpful guidance for liquidators of corporate groups looking for remuneration recovery absent a pooling order.
PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITIES REGISTER (PPSR) – Applicant registered security interest in collateral (helicopter) – helicopter stolen and sold to other party – other party on-sold helicopter to third party and applied to register financing change statement to end applicant’s interest – meaning of “security interest” – decision affirmed
When competition and criminal law collide. This case note discusses the interlocutory appeal in Country Care Group v CDPP, in which the Full Court of the Federal Court considered the complexity of criminal prosecutions for cartel offences and the need to direct juries about alternative pathways to conviction.
The Supreme Court of Victoria dismisses a judicial review of a council finding that the Bald Hills Wind Farm was creating an acoustic nuisance affecting neighbouring residents.
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Jams 2 Pty Ltd v Stubbings provides much-needed clarification regarding the test for statutory unconscionability in the wake of the High Court’s split decision in ASIC v Kobelt.
In a joint judgment, a Full Court of five members (Allsop CJ, Kenny, Besanko, Mortimer and Moshinsky JJ) held that the power in s 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to refuse to grant a visa can be used to refuse an application for a protection visa, even if the applicant otherwise satisfies the protection visa criteria.
A recent judgment of O’Callaghan J confirms that rental expenses incurred during the statutory ‘no liability’ period following an administrator’s appointment may be afforded priority in a subsequent winding up, despite the fact that the administrators are not personally liable for those expenses.
This piece looks at the question raised by Dental Corporation’s application for special leave to appeal to the High Court: did the Federal Court have jurisdiction to make a declaration about the application of subsection 12(3) of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth)?
Ever since the decision of Crosby v Kelly (2012) 203 FCR 451, the Federal Court has become, in many respects, the jurisdiction du jour for defamation litigants throughout Australia.
How did we get here? Who can go there? How? And why would you want to? This article seeks to answer these questions.