Involved 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 […]
ReadmoreClass Action against Local Government
In a class action proceeding against a local government for a claim in debt, the plaintiff made an application to strike out parts of the local government’s defence and counter claim that sought to rely on the principles of ‘change of position’, a defence associated with restitution. The application by the plaintiff was dismissed and […]
ReadmoreThe future of litigation in Queensland – eDiscovery and eTrials
Litigation can be costly. In particular, the discovery stage can form one of the most expensive phases of the litigation process. The Court and practitioners alike are increasingly turning to technological solutions to reduce the time and cost of the discovery process. Taking into account such factors, Gadens were recently involved in a proceeding in […]
ReadmoreJudicial review – proper, genuine and realistic consideration
A recent Federal Court decision is a timely reminder that Ministers should not rely entirely on briefing notes before making decisions – and when the decision is defended, it is the Minister who is expected to give evidence. The Federal Court recently found that a Minister had failed to “consider any comments, information or documents” […]
ReadmoreThe risks of discontinuing: a look at the High Court’s decision in UBS v Tyne
The recent High Court decision of UBS v Tyne [2018] HCA 45 concerned circumstances where an original trustee of a trust discontinued proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, then almost 2 years later a subsequently-appointed trustee of the same trust commenced fresh proceedings in the Federal Court raising, in substance, the same claims against […]
ReadmoreBorrowers punished for behaving unconscionably in taking advantage of a lender’s mistake
The New South Wales Supreme Court decision of Citigroup v Wernhard [2019] NSWSC 132 considers whether certain conduct by the borrowers was unconscionable (as against a lender). Borrowers sold one of three properties that was held as security for loans to them, but the lender mistakenly released mortgages over all three. The borrowers noticed the mistake, subsequently sold […]
Readmore
