The Commercial Bar Association of Victoria Inc. A0120851O
The Court of Appeal in this case upheld the finding of misleading or deceptive conduct against the vehicle manufacturer and dealership. This was in circumstances of full compliance with regulations requiring a fuel consumption label displaying test results to be affixed to vehicles at the point of sale.
This case concerns a contractual dispute involving the wholesale electricity market. It provides an introduction to the operation of the wholesale electricity market and examples of sound contractual interpretation where private agreements interact with the rules of the wholesale electricity market.
FINA’s new policy, which provides that transgender women cannot compete in elite swimming competitions if they have experienced male puberty, gets the balance right.
This case note reviews a decision where a plaintiff, as corporate trustee in liquidation and claiming to be assignee of a right to recover a debt paid for by a guarantor, sought to enforce that right. The decision addresses the power of a former trustee as bare trustee to deal with trust assets and the powers of a liquidator of a bare trustee in similar respects.
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.
In February, the Victorian Court of Appeal held that federal pre-selection disputes within political parties are justiciable; in March, the High Court refused special leave; and in April the NSW Court of Appeal expressly rejected the Victorian Court of Appeal position.
This note summarises last year’s High Court decision in Newcastle Operations Pty Limited v Glencore Coal Assets Australia Pty Ltd (2021) 395 ALR 209 which finally determined the fee dispute between Glencore and the Port of Newcastle’s private operator.
If you are not a party to a contract, but you are affected by its terms, can you go to court to get a declaration about what the contract means?
In February 2020, the plaintiffs commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against Bald Hills Wind Farm for nuisance. The Court found that turbine noise amounted, intermittently at night, to a substantial and unreasonable interference with the plaintiffs’ enjoyment of their land.
Citta v Cawthorn concerns the limits on jurisdiction of State tribunals (like VCAT) which are not courts of a State. The case explains the scope of matters arising under the Constitution or under a Commonwealth law. These questions are also relevant when determining whether federal courts have jurisdiction.
The prohibition against creditor-defeating dispositions under s 588FDB has been considered and applied for the first time since its introduction over two years ago. The conduct in question was found to be a brazen and audacious example of phoenixing and the Supreme Court of Victoria made orders voiding the relevant contract.
Building block modelling used to calculate a fair remuneration for aeronautical services provided to Qantas by Perth Airport.
In a decision with wide-reaching ramifications for the doctrine of unconscionability in Australia, the High Court in Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6 comprehensively overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal, finding that lenders had engaged in both general law and statutory unconscionable conduct in their asset-based lending system, and were not redeemed by their ‘window dressing’ advice certificates.
The Federal Court’s decision in Commissioner of Taxation v PricewaterhouseCoopers [2022] FCA 278 considers whether the doctrine of legal professional privilege will apply to communications involving multi-disciplinary partnerships with legal and non-legal partners.