It might be yours there but it’s not down here: Issues arising under the PPSA in cross-border transactions

As a relatively new piece of legislation, the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) is yet to be the subject of much significant judicial consideration. Whilst the position of the Australian courts is becoming clearer in relation to domestic disputes, parties to cross-border transactions continue to encounter an alarming number of uncertainties with respect to the enforcement and maintenance of their security interests. This article considers the relevant problematic provisions of the PPSA and considers them in light of the authorities dealing with corresponding legislation in other jurisdictions. It then attempts to provide some guidance and suggestions as to the best means of protecting security interests in cross-border transactions.

Natural hazards and land use planning: How resilient must a landowner be?

The past decade has seen an increase in the occurrence of natural hazards and the experience in Australia has led to a reconsideration of the planning for natural hazards by government and to the adoption of a whole-of-nation resilience-based approach to disaster management. A key component of creating community resilience is the integration of disaster management with government and community strategic planning in relation to the social, built, economic and natural environments. Joint responsibility of government and the community for ‘land use planning systems and building control arrangements [which] reduce, as far as is practicable, community exposure to unreasonable risks from known hazards’, is a critical element of a resilient community. As the responsibility for the implementation of land use planning policies in Australia is generally with local governments, this paper will examine whether, in light of improved predictive technology, the failure of a local government to adequately foresee and make provision for a known hazard will give rise to liability for damage or loss of property caused by that hazard.

Submission to the Productivity Commission issues paper business set-Up, transfer and closure

The Commission has been asked to identify appropriate options for reducing entry and exit barriers including advice on the potential impacts of the personal/corporate insolvency regimes on business exits...

Submission to the Productivity Commission draft report business set-up, transfer and closure

The Commission has released a Draft Report on Business Set-Up, Transfer and Closure for public consultation and input. It is pleasing to note that three chapters of the Draft Report address aspects of personal and corporate insolvency. Nevertheless, we continue to make the submission to national policy inquiries and discussions that a comprehensive review should be undertaken of the regulation of insolvency and restructuring in Australia. The last comprehensive review of the insolvency system was by the Australian Law Reform Commission (the Harmer Report) and was handed down in 1988. Whilst there have been aspects of our insolvency laws that have been reviewed since that time, none has been able to provide the clear and comprehensive analysis that is able to come from a more considered review. Such a review ought to be conducted by the Australian Law Reform Commission or similar independent panel set up for the task. We also suggest that there is a lack of data available to assist with addressing questions raised by the Draft Report. There is a need to invest in finding out, in a rigorous and informed way, how the current law operates. Until there is a willingness to make a public investment in such research with less reliance upon the anecdotal (often from well-meaning but ultimately inadequately informed participants and others) the government cannot be sure that the insolvency regime we have provides the most effective regime to underpin Australia’s commercial and financial dealings, nor that any change is justified. We also make the submission that there are benefits in a serious investigation into a merged regulatory architecture of personal and corporate insolvency and a combined personal and corporate insolvency regulator.

Compensation or consideration for a statutory right of user?

Section 180 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) makes provision for an applicant to seek a statutory right of user over a neighbour’s property where such right of use is reasonably necessary in the interests of effective use in any reasonable manner of the dominant land. A key issue in an application under s 180 is compensation. Unfortunately, while s 180 expressly contemplates that an order for compensation will include provision for payment of compensation to the owner of servient land there are certain issues that are less clear. One of these is the basis for determination of the amount of compensation. In this regard, s 180(4)(a) provides that, in making an order for a statutory right of user, the court: (a) shall, except in special circumstances, include provision for payment by the applicant to such person or persons as may be specified in the order of such amount by way of compensation or consideration as in the circumstances appears to the court to be just The operation of this statutory provision was considered by de Jersey CJ (as he then was) in Peulen v Agius [2015] QSC 137.

Insolvency academics contributing to the review of insolvency laws: An Australian perspective

Introduction 1 It gives me great pleasure to contribute to this publication to honour Professor Ian Fletcher on his retirement as Foundation Chair of the INSOL International Academic Group. A collection of essays that include topics on domestic, cross-border and international insolvency appropriately reflects the breadth of Professor Fletcher’s impact on the scholarship of insolvency law – not only in his “home” jurisdiction of England and Wales and closer to home in Europe, but also stretching around the globe, in this case, to Australia. 2 In the early 1990s when I first began to research in the area of cross-border insolvency law, a colleague mentioned that they had recently attended the XIIIth International Congress of Comparative Law in Montreal in August 1990 and heard the Cross-border Insolvency: General Report expertly delivered by an English academic, Ian Fletcher, who was widely regarded as an authority in the area. This was my first introduction to Professor Fletcher’s work and over the intervening years I have referred often to his scholarship....

Global rules on conflict-of-laws matters in international insolvency law cases: An Australian perspective

The 2012 Report “Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Co-operation in International Insolvency Cases” – commissioned by The American Law Institute in conjunction with The International Insolvency Institute – annexed 23 “Global Rules on Conflict-of-Laws Matters in International Insolvency Cases”. These proposed “Global Rules” are intended to “serve as legislative recommendations” to (inter alia) promote uniformity and greater certainty in the unpredictable area of conflict of laws. This article provides a brief commentary upon the 23 proposed Global Rules from an Australian perspective (comparing the effect and intent of each rule with the current Australian conflict-of-laws position) and offers some conclusions as to the merits of the “Global Rules” initiative.

Insolvency specialists and government enquiries: A unique opportunity to contribute to the public good

This lecture addresses the contribution of research by insolvency specialists to the development of insolvency law and practice, in particular to the (re-)design of insolvency systems. It draws on examples from Australia of government enquiries to reform insolvency law as well as other areas of law with which it intersects. It comments on the role that insolvency specialists can play in such policy debates – not only insolvency academics but also scholarly practitioners – for the public good.

Email negotiations form a binding land contract without a 'signature'

Email is rapidly replacing other forms of communication as the preferred means of communication between contracting parties. The recent decision of Stellard Pty Ltd v North Queensland Fuel Pty Ltd [2015] QSC 119 reinforces the judicial acceptance of email as an effective means of creating a binding agreement and the willingness to adopt a liberal concept of ‘signing’ in an electronic environment.

Regulating unilateral supermarket misconduct as customer/acquirer of goods and services

Supermarkets in Australia may have substantial market power as buyers in wholesale markets for grocery products. They may also have substantial bargaining power in negotiating contracts with their suppliers of grocery products. The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) regulates misconduct by supermarkets as customer/acquirers in three ways. First, s 46(1) of the CCA prohibits the ‘taking advantage’ of buyer power for the purpose of damaging a competitor, preventing entry or deterring or preventing competitive conduct. Secondly, s 21 of the ACL prohibits unconscionable conduct in business–to–business transactions. Thirdly, Pt IVB of the CCA provides for the promulgation of mandatory and voluntary industry codes of conduct. Since 1 July 2015 the conduct of supermarkets as customer/acquirers has been regulated by the Food and Grocery Industry Code of Conduct. This article examines these three different approaches. It considers them against the background of the misconduct at issue in ACCC v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd which the ACCC chose to litigate as an unconscionable conduct case, rather than a misuse of market power case. The article also considers the strengths and weaknesses of each of the three approaches and concludes that while the three approaches address different problems there is scope for overlap and all three should be retained for compete coverage.

An agreement to negotiate a contract in good faith: No legal content and too uncertain for enforcement

The decision of Baldwin v Icon Energy Ltd [2015] QSC 12 is generally instructive upon the issue of the minimum required to enforce an agreement to negotiate .The language of these agreements is always couched in terms which include the expressions “good faith” and “reasonable endeavours” as descriptive of the yardstick of behaviour of each party in the intended negotiation to follow such an agreement. However, the mere statement of these intended characteristics of negotiation may not be sufficient to ensure that the agreement to negotiate is enforceable.

Breaches of lease between exercise of option to renew and expiry of lease in Queensland

The decision of Greppo v Jam-Cal Bundaberg Pty Ltd [2015] QCA 131 illustrates a defect in s 128 of the Property Law Act 1974(Qld) which gives a right to a lessee to apply for relief against forfeiture against loss of a right to exercise an option to renew. The defect arises because the legislation does not adequately deal with breaches that occur after the exercise of the option but before the expiry of the lease. Most commercial leases of all kinds have a standard provisions, as the lease in this case, as a conditions of the exercise of the option to renew that the lessee will have given notice of exercise within the time specified to the lessor and will have up to the date of expiry of the lease paid all rent and observed all lessee’s covenants. The difficulties occur because invariably an option must be exercised before the expiry of the lease when a lessee may not be in breach of the lease but may later prior to the expiry of the lease fall into breach. As this decision indicates,at least in Queensland, that the lessee who desires to challenge the lessor’s right to enforce those conditions can neither seek relief under s 128 against forfeiture of the right to exercise the option ,or indeed, under s 124 of the Property Law Act 1974 to preserve the agreement for lease brought about by the otherwise regular exercise of the option to renew. The decision cries out for legislative reform along the lines of s 133E of the Conveyancing Act 1919(NSW) which was amended in 2001 to meet this contingency.

Australian Consumer Law Commentary and Materials [5th Ed.]

"The Australian Consumer Law came into operation on 1 January 2011 as a single national law. It replaced 17 different pieces of Commonwealth, State and Territory legislation relating to consumer protection. Its introduction meant that for the first time, consumers throughout Australia had the same rights and remedies and correspondingly, businesses had the same obligations and responsibilities towards consumers without the barrier of confusing and expensive local variations in the law. Australian Consumer Law: Commentary and Materials contains up-to-date material on the Australian Consumer Law, and in particular the fifth edition incorporates: a revised treatment of unconscionability, taking account of the changes to Part 2-2 of the ACL that became effective in 2012; other State and Federal provisions relating to unfair terms and cases such as Kakavas v Crown Melbourne, ACCC v Lux Distributors, Director of Consumer Affairs v Scully and PT Ltd v Spuds Surf; a comprehensive treatment of the impact of Google v ACCC, Forrest v ASIC and ACCC v TPG – the trilogy of decisions that provide the most recent insights into the High Court’s thinking on aspects of the prohibitions of misleading conduct in the ACL and the Corporations Act 2001; numerous decisions of note; and the possible impact of the Harper Review."--publisher website

Bank guarantees and the reasonable expectations of beneficiaries

A bank guarantee has traditionally been viewed as a cash equivalent. This view is supported by the operation of the autonomy principle. However, the autonomy principle is subject to certain recognised exceptions both at common law and under statute. One of these exceptions is commonly referred to as the negative stipulation or underlying contract exception. In recent times the operation of this particular exception has given rise to a wealth of case law. This article examines whether this recent case law appropriately recognises the reasonable expectations of the beneficiary of a bank guarantee that a bank guarantee should function not only as a security but as a risk allocation device.

Reinforcing stigma or delivering a fresh start: Bankruptcy and future engagement in the workforce

In Australia, bankruptcy retains a social stigma, as is often seen as a personal failing, and an indication that the individual cannot be trusted to meet their obligations. Official labelling and informal labelling reinforce this stigmatisation of bankruptcy in employment and business contexts. This occurs through legislation and policy that imposes restrictions on participation in some occupations on the grounds of bankruptcy, and imposes obligations on persons to disclose their bankruptcy to their employer. These restrictions and obligations that are varying in length and extent, both within industries and professions and across industries and professions, and appear to lack a coherent policy justification. Further, informal labelling is facilitated by the law providing for a permanent, publicly accessible record of bankruptcy, and failing to restrict the use of bankruptcy information in employment and business decision-making. This stigmatisation of bankruptcy inhibits the fresh start objective of bankruptcy, and is not supported by a strong correlation between bankruptcy and negative personal or other attributes. This article therefore argues that a review is needed to determine the circumstances in which there is a genuine policy justification for employment restrictions, and the appropriate length and scope of such restrictions. Reform of the Bankruptcy Act should also be considered. Possible areas for law reform including reducing the minimum period of bankruptcy; removing the permanency and/or public accessibility of the bankruptcy record; revising the language used in the Bankruptcy Act; and introducing a prohibition or restriction on the ability of employers to use bankruptcy status in employment decision making. Such changes would promote the fresh start objective of Australia’s bankruptcy system, and increase the likelihood that bankruptcy does not unfairly inhibit an individual’s ability to engage as an economic actor in Australian society and thereby improve their financial well-being.