The Commercial Bar Association of Victoria Inc. A0120851O
Appeal from liquidators’ decision to reject claim for the return of cleaning equipment subject to retention of title. Consideration of retention of title clauses and the application of the transitional security agreements under Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth).
In insolvency law the calculation of precise periods of time is important. Insolvency practitioners need to know exactly when limitation periods end in order to preserve potential claims. The “relation back period” is one of the more important time periods relevant to calculating limitations, and yet there is surprisingly little authority on exactly when the relation back period starts.
Last week, 31 March, the US Supreme Court heard oral argument on the question whether Alice Corporation can patent its software system for a method of payment: Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, Supreme Court Docket No 13-298 (2014). Several patents and claims are in issue, all relating to a computerized trading platform used for conducting financial transactions in which a third party settles obligations between a first and a second party so as to eliminate “counterparty” or “settlement” risk. The issue is whether what Alice Corporation is claiming is even patent-eligible subject matter (let alone knew or inventive). In Australia, the corresponding question is whether what is claimed is “a manner of manufacture”.
In Vasudevan & Ors v Becon Const & Anor [2014] VSCA 14, the Victorian Court of Appeal adopted a broader interpretation of the phrase ‘for the benefit of … a director’ in s 588FDA of the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act) than has been accepted in previous cases. The decision has the potential to widen the ambit of the unreasonable director-related transactions provisions of the Act.
Challenge to creditor standing on application to wind up appellant company on grounds of insolvency. Standing examined with reference to bona fides of the appellant’s asserted counter claim and circumstances surrounding the failure of appellant to take steps to advance asserted counter-claim or demonstrate solvency. Court held respondent had standing as a creditor in accordance with s 459P(1)(b) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
Eugenia Levine – The Commonwealth of Australia v The Australian Capital Territory
Roslyn Kaye – The New South Wales Court of Appeal allowed this appeal brought by the ANZ bank. The trial judge had found that the bank was not entitled to rely upon an assumption that a forged guarantee document had been duly executed. The Court of Appeal held that the bank was entitled to rely upon the assumptions in sections 129(4) and (5) of the Corporations Act 2001 that the guarantee had been duly executed, and accordingly the guarantee was enforceable against the respondent company.
This case decided that VCAT is not a “court” for the purposes of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 (“CAA”) and therefore is not obliged to refer parties to arbitration in accordance with section 8 of the CAA where the matter before VCAT is the subject of an arbitration agreement.
Roslyn Kaye – In this appeal, the New South Wales Court of Appeal: (a) dismissed an appeal by two company directors who were found by the trial judge to have breached their directors’ duties; and (b) upheld an appeal by an individual alleged to have been in knowing receipt of monies transferred to her by the directors in breach of their fiduciary duties.
Dr Josh Wilson SC and William Lye – In our capacity as heads of the Asia Practice Section of CommBar, it gives us great pleasure to report that our endeavours to crack the Asian market on behalf CommBar have again bore fruit. This time we have successfully opened the door for CommBar’s entry into Malaysia.
The Bank of Queensland (BOQ) has recently won a large class action proceeding in the New South Wales Supreme Court. The Bank successfully defended claims of misleading and deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct and negligence brought by franchisees who claimed loss and damage caused by the failure of their franchise branches.
Monitor’s Report – The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (‘ASADA’) investigation into the AFL and NRL appears to be continuing, despite the two codes almost commencing their next season since the investigation began. It is unclear what the outcome of this will be, and when an outcome will be achieved. Former Federal Court Judge Garry Downes has been appointed to review the ASADA investigation, including to determine whether charges could be laid in respect of alleged infractions.
In 470 St Kilda Road Pty Ltd V Robinson [2013] FCA 1420 Kenny J considered the ‘professional services’ exclusion in a directors’ and officers’ liability insurance contract. The case provides a useful review of the authorities dealing with this exclusion, and is relevant in respect of interpreting exclusion clauses in insurance contracts more generally.
In this matter Mr Holmes QC, sitting as a sole arbitrator in the Appeal Arbitration Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”), was called upon to determine the proper construction of the Nomination Criteria relevant to athletes seeking to represent Australia in the sport of Alpine skiing at the 2014 Olympic Winter Games. Arbitrator Holmes QC applied contractual construction principles to construe the relevant criteria, and dismissed the proceeding.