The High Court of Australia’s judgment in TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v The Judges of the Federal Court of Australia  HCA 5 (13 March 2013) is the most important development in arbitration in Australia in the past 12 months, and has been keenly awaited by arbitration users and practitioners.
The High Court ruled that Google did not breach the Australian Consumer Law by acting as a ‘conduit’ to misleading content from sponsored links.
In this case, the High Court rejected an argument that to constitute ‘insider’ trading in contravention of the Corporations Act 2001, the information of which the accused person is in possession must be true and accurate. Justices Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell delivered a joint judgment and Justice Heydon delivered a separate judgment in which his Honour agreed with the plurality that the appeal ought to be dismissed.
Sharpe & Ors v PSAL Ltd  QCA 371 Facts The first appellant was an experienced investor and sole director of the second appellant. On 29 October 2009 the second appellant purchased a rural...
The Queensland Court of Appeal unsurprisingly declares that members of the committee of an incorporated association are entitled to access and copy its business documents.
This is the second case note of two cases in which subsequent owners of a home have brought proceedings in respect of defects which are said to have arisen after purchase of the home. In determining whether the owners had suffered loss, the Tribunal considered whether the owners had constructive knowledge of ‘reasonably observable’ defects, also introducing the concept of the ‘untrained eye’.
Bank of Western Australia Ltd v Abdul  VSC 222 – Justice Croft The Bank of Western Australia Ltd (Bankwest) sought to enforce a loan with the defendants Naseem Abdul (the first defendant) and...
This is the first case note of two cases in which owners of a home have brought proceedings in respect of defects which are said to have arisen after purchase of the home. The Tribunal considered the issue of whether knowledge by the purchasers of the defects prior to purchase affected their claims.
The United Kingdom Supreme Court has recently decided a case interpreting the ‘inherent vice’ exclusion under the widely used Institute Cargo Clauses (A) policy and the equivalent exclusion under the Marine Insurance Act 1906 (UK) (‘MIA’) in contradistinction to the insurance coverage term ‘peril of the sea’. Because the Marine Insurance Act 1909 (Cth) is for all intents and purposes identical to the MIA, and because of the wide customary usage of the Institute Cargo Clauses, the case is important to all practitioners in the fields of marine insurance and international trade law.