The Commercial Bar Association of Victoria Inc. A0120851O
The effect of a very significant judgment of the South Australian Court of Appeal is that unless there is an express agreement to the contrary, ordinarily parties to an arbitration agreement will not be subject to the proportionate liability regimes that apply throughout Australia (with the possible exception of the Queensland regime).
A judgment of the Court of Appeal on the determination of a preliminary issue whether an insured was entitled to indemnity explores the nature of the insured’s obligation to take reasonable precautions to comply with certain regulations and guidelines.
A recent decision of the SA Court of Appeal illustrates the challenges facing a minority interest holder in a tightly held investment vehicle seeking to extricate itself from the venture on grounds including oppression.
A decision of the Court of Appeal of South Australia has set a relatively high bar both for the clarity of the manifestation of the parties’ agreement that there be an appeal on a question of law under s 34A(1)(a) and the obviousness of the error required to be shown to obtain leave under s 34A(3)(c)(i).
Justice Moshinsky found that the Insured notified the Insurer of facts that might give rise to a claim against the Insured in a class action. His Honour also found that the Insurer breached its duty of utmost good faith. Thus, his Honour upheld the Insured’s claim for the Insurer to pay his legal costs in the class action.
The Full Court of the Federal Court has dismissed an appeal against the decision of Foster J rejecting the appellants’ claims for compensation for alleged breaches by Babcock & Brown Ltd of its continuous disclosure obligations in the midst of the global financial crisis.
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 company’s claims against its lawyers and non-executive chairperson after a failed attempt to list have been dismissed. The case offers a unique insight into a float which sunk and the gruelling hours worked by the company’s advisors, and stands as a testament to the judgment exercised by the company’s non-executive directors, who were placed in an invidious position.
The Victorian Court of Appeal and a Full Court of the Federal Court have each recently held that the statutory priority regime applies to the winding up of companies that act as trustees of trading trusts, confirming that employee claims and a liquidator’s remuneration and costs are priority debts. Special leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision has been sought.
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.
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.