Service of a creditor’s statutory demand – the importance of serving at the registered office maintained by ASIC
The recent decision of Mills Oakley v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98 highlights the need for strict compliance when serving a creditor’s statutory demand on the registered office of a company. The Court considered whether a creditor’s statutory demand, with an error in the registered address of the company, was served in accordance with […]
ReadmoreLiquidator’s application to obtain greater role in managed investment scheme winding up
In LM Investment Management Limited v Whyte [2019] QSC 233, the Supreme Court of Queensland considered an application by a Liquidator to: replace the court-appointed Receiver in the winding up of a managed investment scheme as well as for a complex remuneration and costs regime to be put in place; and to access the scheme property in […]
ReadmoreLiquidator’s remuneration from trust assets – the next instalment
In LM Investment Management Limited & Anor Whyte [2019] QSC 245, the Supreme Court of Queensland considered an application by the Liquidator of LM Investment Management Limited (LM), for payment of some or all of his remuneration from trust property. The trust property comprised by a number of registered investment schemes, including the LM First Mortgage Income […]
ReadmoreSend it to the right person: the importance of accurate notices terminating options
In JPA Finance Pty Ltd v Gordon Nominees Pty Ltd,[1] the Supreme Court of Victoria held that a notice purportedly terminating an option to purchase 20 units in a trust for $2.3M was invalid. This was because it was not addressed in accordance with the contract. Instead of being addressed to the company care of its lawyers, […]
ReadmoreWhen privileged documents are stolen and disseminated: an analysis of the High Court’s decision in Glencore
In Glencore International AG v Commissioner of Taxation [2019] HCA 26, the High Court considered whether Glencore could restrain the Commissioner of Taxation from making use of certain privileged documents. Interestingly, the privileged documents in question were stolen as part of a cyberattack from Glencore’s solicitors and disseminated amongst the “Paradise Papers”. Background Solicitors acting for the […]
ReadmoreInvolved or not involved? That is the question for partners.
It is well established that the privilege against self-incrimination and privilege from exposure to civil penalties can be claimed by natural persons and are not available to corporations. However, the position is not yet settled insofar as it relates to partnerships. More specifically, whether all partners can claim the privileges or whether it can only […]
ReadmoreBellamy’s cry for “cost capping” in competing McKay and Basil class actions dismissed by the Full Court of the Federal Court
On 23 August 2019, the Full Court of the Federal Court in Bellamy’s Australia Limited v Basil [2019] FCAFC 147 (Bellamy’s) unanimously dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to appeal “costs capping” orders, initially rejected by the primary judge at first instance. Bellamy’s Australia Limited (BAL) is the respondent to two class actions: McKay Super […]
ReadmoreSettling a class action – common fund orders and legal costs
On 30 July 2019, Justice Parker handed down a decision in the Supreme Court of NSW class action Tredrea v KPMG Financial Advisory Services (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2019] (Tredrea) refusing both to grant a Common Fund Order (sought by the funder at a rate of 30% of the gross settlement reached) or approve the […]
ReadmoreFederal Court finds ticket reseller engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct
In the recent case of ACCC v Viagogo AG, the Federal Court considered whether Viagogo engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by acting in a way liable to mislead consumers when reselling event tickets in breach of the Australian Consumer Law. This decision is a reminder to businesses to accurately describe the nature of the products or services […]
ReadmoreCourt criticises ASIC for lack of evidence to support inquiry into liquidators
The recent Supreme Court of NSW decision of ASIC v Wily & Hurst, provides useful guidance regarding the Court’s criteria to inquire into a liquidator’s conduct under former section 536 of the Corporations Act 2001(Cth). The decision is relevant as to how a Court may determine such an application made under the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations). The decision […]
ReadmoreEmployees’ priority in the insolvency of a trading trust: the Amerind case in the High Court
In the Amerind case, the High Court has unanimously held that the former staff of an insolvent trustee company have the same rights to priority payments as the employees of an insolvent non-trustee company. In doing so, the Court settled a long-standing debate about the nature of a trustee’s right to indemnify itself from trust property for trust […]
ReadmoreNo injunction to enforce legal professional privilege – High Court’s decision in Glencore highlights the extreme risks of data breach
The High Court has in Glencore v Commissioner of Taxation[1] determined unanimously that legal professional privilege is not a legal right that is enforceable by way of an injunction when confidential documents enter the public domain, even as a result of theft. Privilege remains a fundamental right but it is only an immunity from complying […]
Readmore
