Court 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 […]
ReadmoreBanks to take extra care with vulnerable customers
The new Banking Code of Practice, which commences on 1 July 2019, requires member banks to train their staff to take extra care with vulnerable customers, by acting with sensitivity, respect and compassion.
ReadmoreThe duty of care of a public authority
A recent Queensland decision[1] raises the important issue as to when a pubic authority, in the exercise of its statutory powers, will owe a common law duty of care to the public. In 2012, a three-year old child was hit and fatally injured in the carpark area of a Hungry Jack’s restaurant complex. The driver […]
ReadmoreNot all errors are equal
The nature of jurisdictional error has long confounded and confused. Not all errors of law are equal. Some errors deprive decision makers of authority, others do not. Some errors may be reviewed; the review of others may validly be excluded. There is a distinction of principle between errors characterised as jurisdictional errors and errors characterised […]
ReadmoreWhen is a decision subject to judicial review?
The Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) (JRA) provides an avenue for a person aggrieved by an administrative decision to seek judicial review. However, the right of a person to make an application for review of a decision[1] and the power of the Court to make orders[2] depend on the existence of ‘a decision to which […]
Readmore
