The Commercial Bar Association of Victoria Inc. A0120851O
The Commonwealth government’s ‘root and branch’ review of Australia’s competition laws has reached the half-way mark. Proposed reform of section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 is especially controversial.
The Victorian Court of Appeal has refused an application for leave to appeal against a decision of a trial judge to allow a plaintiff to amend his statement of claim in a group proceeding. The amended pleading relates to the interpretation of section 729 of the Corporations Act 2001 (claim for loss and damage arising from misleading or deceptive statements in a disclosure document).
After great introductory fanfare, the Asian century was meant to be all things to those who traded in Asia. But have events turned out that way? This article says yes and that opportunities continue.
ACCC v Informed Sources (Australia) Pty Ltd & Ors VID450/2014 – In August this year the ACCC launched Federal Court proceedings against retail petrol suppliers. The case is an important test of the application of Australia’s competition laws to ‘tacit collusion’. The ACCC has to date had minimal success in this area.
The first ever Victorian Bar and Law Institute of Victoria Joint Conference, held on Friday 17 October 2014, was an opportunity for the profession and the judiciary to confront the complexities and challenges of modern high stakes litigation and dispute resolution.
Are you a County Court litigator charging scale? If so, congratulations, you just got a pay rise. Commiserations on the other hand if you a County Court litigant already rueful about rejecting a shrewd offer of compromise. Your burden just got heavier. The County Court of Victoria has amended its cost rule, Order 63A. For beneficiaries of scale costs (lawyers and successful litigants especially) this is good news.
The Victorian Court of Appeal recently confirmed the importance of counsel’s duty to ensure serious allegations of misconduct are only made if reasonably justified by available material.
The decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in favour of the Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd (FOS) highlights the difficulties for financial services providers in trying to challenge decisions of FOS and the dispute resolution process under the terms of reference (TOR). The TOR operate as a binding contract with a finality clause in favour of FOS’ decisions and determinations.
The Victorian Court of Appeal has held that the 10 year limitation for commencing a building action in s. 134 of the Building Act 1993 (“Building Act”) is not confined to negligence claims, but also applies to actions founded in contract. The Court of Appeal also held that, on the facts of the case, no duty of care was owed by the building surveyor to the owner to prevent the type of loss suffered by the owner.
Examination of whether shares purchased from a bankrupt’s income below the threshold amount in respect of which he was required to make contributions to his trustee under Division 4B of Part 6 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) is within the meaning of “after acquired property” in s 58(1).
Co-authored by Kieran Hickie and Andrew Kirby. The decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in favour of the NAB highlights some difficulties that might arise between lenders and recalcitrant borrowers in relation to terms of settlement for the compromise of repossession proceedings. The Court of Appeal’s decision demonstrates that borrowers who enter terms of settlement must comply with the conditions of the terms of settlement.
Alphapharm submitted that, although AstraZeneca had succeeded, it had no need to litigate at all because Alphapharm had made it clear that it would desist from conduct of the kind that was alleged to be in infringement of patents, until such time as the result of the appeal in Ranbaxy was known. Nevertheless AstraZeneca commenced proceedings against Alphapharm. AstraZeneca submitted that not only was it entitled to its costs in the normal course, but also that those costs should be taxed on the special basis for which section 19(2) of the Patents Act provides.
The Full Court of the Federal Court has refused to set aside or resist enforcement of an international arbitral award on the basis of an allegation that there was a breach of natural justice in making certain findings of fact and that the award was therefore against Australian public policy.
Shareholder protection in increasingly complex capital markets proved a timely focus for the ninth Supreme Court of New South Wales Annual Corporate Law Conference, held in Sydney on 29 July 2014.