The Commercial Bar Association of Victoria Inc. A0120851O
Justice Black’s decision in Re BCA National Training Group confirms that s 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) only operates where there is a contest between preferred creditors and a secured party in relation to circulating asset realisations.
The Full Court of the Federal Court recently considered the principles governing the preparation of expert evidence in New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung [2023] FCAFC 67.
This case note reviews a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court on the question of whether or not a person seeking to trace money or property must first establish the existence of a fiduciary relationship. In analysing the divergent views evident in a number of cases, the Court unanimously held that a fiduciary relationship is not a precondition.
What happens when a regulator takes court action against a corporation alleging misconduct, and a class action is brought against the corporation for the same or similar alleged misconduct? This article introduces the debate around why class actions are brought in parallel to regulatory proceedings, and flags some of the case management issues that practitioners involved in parallel proceedings need to be across.
Litigation resulting from a vaguely-drafted deed of loan involving distressed borrowers tasked the NSWSC with a substantial exercise in characterisation of the deed’s operative provisions, resulting in a finding of a mortgage and revisiting of modern status of clogs on equity of redemption.
The Full Court rules that the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) does not apply to the privatisation of Port Botany and Port Kembla.
In a recent decision, Justice Jackman of the Federal Court of Australia has criticised the practice of giving written evidence of a conversation in direct speech (whether or not prefaced by “words to the effect of”), when the witness only remembers the gist of it.
Is it necessary for a plaintiff to establish that the nature of the defendant’s breach made it impossible to prove expectation damages before it can be awarded reliance damages? No, according to the New South Wales Court of Appeal in 123 259 932 Pty Limited v Cessnock City Council [2023] NSWCA 21.
This article provides a brief overview of the case law arising from claims under business interruption insurance policies for COVID-19 related losses. It also suggests some broader lessons that may be taken from the litigation.
VCAT is bound by an earlier indistinguishable precedent of the Supreme Court, which held that proceedings brought in the Tribunal’s original jurisdiction are not subject to s 5(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act because the tribunal is not a “court of law” within the definition of “action”.
In Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 26, the High Court provided much-needed clarification on the threshold of materiality for the establishment of jurisdictional error.
The High Court has held that a statutory authority responsible for maintaining electrical infrastructure owed a duty of care in relation to property damage and personal injury caused by infrastructure that was affixed to private property. This decision has implications for statutory authorities who are responsible for maintaining infrastructure.
VCAT has found that the time limits in s 5(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act do not apply to claims under s 157 of the Water Act.
The Supreme Court of Victoria recently considered whether a parliamentary media accreditation decision was subject to judicial review. In deciding that it was not, the Court relied on the parliamentary privilege to control access to the parliamentary precincts, which is within the “exclusive cognisance” of Parliament.