Socially responsible investment in market downturns : implications for the fiduciary responsibilities of investment fund trustees

This paper investigates whether Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) is more or less sensitive to market downturns than conventional investment, and examines the legal implications for fund managers and trustees. Using a market model methodology, we find that over the past 15 years, the beta risk of SRI, both in Australia and internationally, increased more than that of conventional investment during economic downturns. This implies that companies acting as fund trustees, managed investment schemes and traditional institutional fund managers risk breaching their fiduciary or statutory duties if they go long - or remain long - in SRI funds during market downturns, unless perhaps relevant legislation is reformed. If reform is viewed as desirable, possible reforms could include explicitly overriding the common law to allow all traditional funds to invest in SRI; granting immunity to directors of trustee companies from potential personal liability under sections 197 or 588G et seq of the Corporations Act; allowing companies acting as trustees, managed investment schemes and traditional institutional fund managers and trustees to invest in SRI without triggering a substantial capital gains tax liability through trust resettlement; tax concessions for SRI (eg. introducing a 150% tax deduction or investment allowance for SRI); and allowing SRI sub-funds to obtain “deductible gift recipient” status or the equivalent from relevant taxation authorities. The research is important and original insofar as the assessment of risk in SRIs during market downturns is an area which has hitherto not been subjected to rigorous empirical investigation, despite its serious legal implications.

Take me to your employer: the organisational reach of occupational health and safety regulation

[Conclusion] We have explored two dimensions of the Australian OHS statutes which enable statutory OHS duties to reach more than one employer or self-employed person within a corporate group or network. First, most of the OHS statutes contain provisions extending the reach of employer’s duty beyond the employer’s employees. One legislative technique is to deem contractors and their employees to be employees of the principal contractor. Another imposes duties on employers and self-employed persons to persons who are not employees, so that employers and self-employed persons can be responsible for the OHS of firms, and those they engage, lower in the contractual chain. These duties are non-delegable, meaning that the principal contractor cannot seek to delegate OHS duties to firms lower in the contractual chain. Second, new Victorian ‘shadow officer’ provisions can be applied to remove difficulties and doubt as to the liability of partners in a partnership, officers of unincorporated associations, joint venturers, and holding and subsidiary companies within corporate groups. While the provisions can be argued simply to confirm that a partner who fails to take reasonable care in relation to OHS will be guilty of an offence, we demonstrate that there are very real benefits to having ‘shadow officer’ provisions which remove uncertainties about the liability of unincorporated associations, joint ventures and corporate groups. Perhaps most significantly, the Victorian corporate officer provisions have the potential to extend liability to individuals and other entities within organisational structures, where those individuals and entities make or participate in making decisions that affect the whole or a substantial part of the organisation’s business, and are responsible for an OHS offence having been committed, due to their failure to take reasonable care. We suggest that similar provisions should be included in all OHS statutes, to overcome at least some of the barriers limiting group responsibility for OHS statutory duties.

The conundrum of phoenix activity: Is further reform necessary?

Phoenix activity presents a conundrum for the law and its regulators. While there is economic cost associated with all phoenix activity, the underlying behaviour is not always illegal. A transaction with indicators of phoenix activity may be an entirely innocent and well-intentioned display of entrepreneurial spirit, albeit one that has ended in failure. Restructuring post business failure is not illegal per se. Recent reforms targeting phoenix activity fail to grapple with the vast range of behaviour that can be described as phoenix activity since they do not differentiate between legal and illegal activity. This article explores the importance of the distinction between legal and illegal phoenix activity, the extent to which the existing law captures a range of behaviour that can be described as illegal phoenix activity and the response of key regulators and governmental bodies to the absence of single law that attempts to define illegal phoenix activity.

Legal duties following the discharge of mental health patients

In the recent decision of Hunter and New England Local Health District v McKenna; Hunter and New England Local Health District v Simon, the High Court of Australia held that a hospital and its medical staff owed no common law duty of care to third parties claiming for mental harm, against the background of statutory powers to detain mentally ill patients. This conclusion was based in part on the statutory framework and in part on the inconsistency which would arise if such a duty was imposed. If such a duty was imposed in these circumstances, the consequence may be that doctors would generally detain rather than discharge mentally ill persons to avoid the foreseeable risk of harm to others. Such an approach would be inconsistent with the policy of the mental health legislation , which favours personal liberty and discharge rather than detention unless no other care of a less restrictive kind is appropriate and reasonably available.

Statutory protections from forfeiture of a leasehold estate following Apriaden Pty Ltd v Seacrest Pty Ltd

In Apriaden Pty Ltd v Seacrest Pty Ltd the Victorian Court of Appeal decided that termination of a lease under common law contractual principles following repudiation is an alternative to reliance upon an express forfeiture provision in the lease and that it is outside the sphere of statutory protections given against the enforcing of a forfeiture. The balance of authority supports the first aspect of the decision. This article focuses on the second aspect of it, which is a significant development in the law of leases. The article considers the implications of this decision for essential terms of clauses in leases, argues that common law termination for breach of essential terms should be subject to compliance with these statutory requirements and, as an alternative, suggests a way forward through appropriate law reform, considering whether the recent Victorian reform goes far enough.

Debate on statutory control of the surveying profession in Queensland : 1907 to 1975

This article was written in 1997. After a 2009 review the content was left mostly unchanged - apart from this re-written abstract, restructured headings and a table of contents. The article deals directly with professional registration of surveyors; but it also relates to government procurement of professional services. The issues include public service and professional ethics; setting of professional fees; quality assurance; official corruption; and professional recruitment, education and training. Debate on the Land Surveyors Act 1908 (Qld) and its amendments to 1916 occurred at a time when industrial unrest of the 1890s and common market principles of the new Commonwealth were fresh in peoples’ minds. Industrial issues led to a constitutional crisis in the Queensland’s then bicameral legislature and frustrated a first attempt to pass a Surveyors Bill in 1907. The Bill was re-introduced in 1908 after fresh elections and Kidston’s return as state premier. Co-ordinated immigration and land settlement polices of the colonies were discontinued when the Commonwealth gained power over immigration in 1901. Concerns shifted to protecting jobs from foreign competition. Debate on 1974 amendments to the Act reflected concerns about skill shortages and professional accreditation. However, in times of economic downturn, a so-called ‘chronic shortage of surveyors’ could rapidly degenerate into oversupply and unemployment. Theorists championed a naïve ‘capture theory’ where the professions captured governments to create legislative barriers to entry to the professions. Supposedly, this allowed rent-seeking and monopoly profits through lack of competition. However, historical evidence suggests that governments have been capable of capturing and exploiting surveyors. More enlightened institutional arrangements are needed if the community is to receive benefits commensurate with sizable co-investments of public and private resources in developing human capital.

Advance Directives and the Promotion of Autonomy: a Comparative Australian Statutory Analysis

Legislation regulating advance directives exists in six Australian jurisdictions. In all of these jurisdictions, legislation was enacted to enshrine the common law right of a competent adult to refuse treatment in advance, even if that treatment was required to sustain life. It was thought that enshrining the common law would also enshrine the principle of autonomy on which the common law was based. This article explores whether this is the case by examining the legislative restrictions that are imposed on a competent adult who wishes to complete an advance directive refusing treatment. The article reviews the legislation in all Australian jurisdictions and concludes that, while many of the legislative restrictions can be justified, many cannot as they effectively erode rather than promote the right of a competent adult to refuse treatment.

Legislative proposals to codify directors' liability for insolvent trading in Hong Kong : a 10-year journey

Hong Kong is a modern global city with a reputation for well-regulated financial markets, but for years, the government had been trying to enact laws on corporate rescue procedures with relatively little success. It is under the pretext of the Global Financial Crisis, the threat of a future economic meltdown gave the Hong Kong government the impetus to revisit this issue. This third attempt to codify statutory obligations on directors’ liability for insolvent trading has been criticised for either setting the standards too high or low for directors trading whilst insolvent. There is also some reservation given the beliefs and values of directors in Chinese family-owned and controlled companies. These companies would most likely trade out the difficult times. Nevertheless, this does not negate from the fact that the enactment of corporate rescue procedures in Hong Kong in 2010 is a momentous achievement for the Hong Kong government.

Regulating for Sustainability : Property Issues

All Australian governments recognize the need to ensure that land and natural resources are used sustainably. In this context, ‘resources’ includes natural resources found on land such as trees and other vegetation, fauna, soil and minerals, and cultural resources found on land such as archaeological sites and artefacts. Regulators use a wide range of techniques to promote sustainability. To achieve their objectives, they may, for example, create economic incentives through bounties, grants and subsidies, encourage the development of self-regulatory codes, or enter into agreements with landowners specifying how the land is to be managed. A common way of regulating is by making administrative orders, determinations or decisions under powers given to regulators by Acts of Parliament (statutes) or by regulations (delegated legislation). Generally the legislation provides for specified rights or duties, and authorises a regulator to make an order or decision to apply the legislative provisions to particular land or cases. For example, legislation might empower a regulator to make an order that requires the owner of a contaminated site to remediate it. When the regulator exercises the power by making an order in relation to particular land, the owner is placed under a statutory duty to remediate. When regulators exercise their statutory powers to manage the use of private land or natural or cultural resources on private land, property law issues can arise. The owner of land has a private property right that the law will enforce against anybody else who interferes with the enjoyment of the right, without legal authority to do so. The law dealing with the enforcement of private property rights forms part of private law. This report focuses on the relationship between the law of private property and the regulation of land and resources by legislation and by administrative decisions made under powers given by legislation (statutory powers).

The Law of Real Property Mortgages

This book examines the principles and practice of real estate mortgages in an easily accessible text referenced to all the Australian States. It specifically deals with the major theoretical and practical aspects of the land mortgage including vitiating factors in formation, mortgagees powers and duties and mortgagors’ rights both statutory and other, assignment, insurance and discharge. As a successor to Mortgages Law in Australia, this book adopts an exclusive focus on real estate mortgages in Australia and provides a thorough account of the law through analysis of the plethora of court decisions and statutory provisions in this area. Duncan and Dixon analyse the substance of the mortgage transaction from creation through to rights of enforcement. This analysis includes detailed consideration of the rights and obligations of both mortgagors and mortgagees covering topics such as priorities and tacking, insurance, variation and assignment, rights of discharge, entry into possession, foreclosure and power of sale. In addition, the book contains a separate chapter on factors that may affect the validity and enforcement of a mortgage together with separate consideration of a mortgagee’s right to enforce a guarantee provided on behalf of a mortgagor and the rights and liabilities associated with a receivership regime initiated by a mortgagee. Written for the national market, the book is one of the few substantial works on this subject for practitioners throughout Australia. It is a very accessible text which enables readers to decide whether or not they have a problem and provides primary guidance to its solution. The book has been deliberately, heavily referenced to incorporate statutory references from across Australia and contains extensive case analysis in order to satisfy both these objectives.

Beware statutory disclosure obligations

Great care is needed to ensure strict compliance with statutory disclosure obligations in conveyancing. The types of issues that may arise are well illustrated by the facts before the court in APM Property 3 Pty Ltd v Blondeau [2009] QSC 326, decision of Mullins J.

Cranes, claims and a statutory right of user

In larger developments there is potential for construction cranes to encroach into the airspace of neighbouring properties. To resolve issues of this nature, a statutory right of user may be sought under s 180 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld). Section 180 allows the court to impose a statutory right of user on servient land where it is reasonably necessary in the interests of effective use in any reasonable manner of the dominant land. Such an order will not be made unless the court is satisfied that it is consistent with public interest, the owner of the servient land can be adequately recompensed for any loss or disadvantage which may be suffered from the imposition and the owner of the servient land has refused unreasonably to agree to accept the imposition of that obligation. In applying the statutory provision, a key practical concern for legal advisers will be the basis for assessment of compensation. A recent decision of the Queensland Supreme Court (Douglas J) provides guidance concerning matters relevant to this assessment. The decision is Lang Parade Pty Ltd v Peluso [2005] QSC 112.