Lifting the joint venture veil : liability of related entities for misleading conduct of agents engaged by joint venture partners

At common law, a corporation may be liable vicariously for the conduct of its appointed agents, employees or directors. This generally requires the agent or employee to be acting in the course of his or her agency or employment and, in the case of representations, to have actual or implied authority to make the representations. The circumstances in which a corporation may be liable for the conduct of its agents, employees or directors is broadened under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) to where one of these parties engages in conduct “on behalf of” the corporation. As the decision in Bennett v Elysium Noosa Pty Ltd (in liq) demonstrates, this may extend to liability for the misleading conduct of a salesperson for the joint venture to parties who are not formal members of the joint venture, but where the joint venture activities are within the course of the entity’s “business, affairs or activities”.

Assignment of lease between lessees as joint tenants-is lessor’s consent required?

The decision of Lockrey v Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales [2012] NSWSC 654 raises an interesting issue about the necessity of seeking the consent of the lessor where there is an assignment of a lease between joint tenants who already hold the lease when one joint tenant sells the business operated on the leased premises to the other joint tenant. A secondary issue raised by the proceedings concerns whether the lessor’s consent was unreasonably withheld under the processes under Retail Leases Act 1994 (NSW) (“the Act”) upon the grounds of lack of provision of information as to the remaining lessee’s financial standing.

A lawyer's duty of care : beware the failure to advise of contingencies and foreseeable risks

It is trite law that a lawyer owes their client a duty of care requiring the lawyer to take reasonable steps to avoid their client suffering foreseeable economiic loss: Hawkins v Clayton. In the context of a property transaction this will include a duty to warn the client of anything that is unusual or anything which may affect the client obtaining the full benefit of the contract entered into: Macindoe v Parbery.

What’s in a name : Is there a right to terminate a contract for purchase of a unit if the name changes?

The significance of the proposed name of a building to buyers of units off the plan has received recent attention in Queensland and the ACT with differing results. In Gough v South Sky Investments Pty Ltd the Queensland Court of Appeal concluded that the name of the building was not an essential term of the contract and rejected a claim by a number of buyers to terminate their contracts because of the change of name from Oracle to Peppers. In contrast, Rares J in the Federal Court decision of Madison Constructions Pty Ltd v Empire Building Group (ACT) Pty Ltd considered that the name of the building in a proposed development could potentially form the basis of misleading conduct about the association of the seller with a particular development corporation.

Termites did not undermine sale

The New South Wales Court of Appeal decision of Wood v Balfour [2011] NSWCA 382 presents an interesting factual matrix relating to the obligation of a seller to disclose significant latent defects in quality of title to a buyer, in this instance, severe termite damage. It offers insights into the difficulty of a buyer proving the existence of the element of deceit in the making of a representation with respect to quality and reinforces the importance of the rule caveat emptor as being an article of faith for every buyer of real estate.

Seller compensated for loss caused through buyer’s misconduct

The decision of Roberts v Juniper [2012] QDC 140 relating to the obligation to rectify damage caused to property and pay mesne profits for use of a property occupied by a buyer under a contract of sale which was later terminated raises interesting points for consideration by property lawyers.

Adverse possession and Crown Leasehold in Queensland

The decision of Eckford v Stanbroke Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 48 ,although a decision refusing summary judgement raises a very important question of the ability to claim adverse possession of a pastoral lease issued in 1956 under the Land Act 1962 (Queensland).Division 5 of Part 6 of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) which guarantees registered freehold title expressly deals with the right of adverse possession however, there is no such provision in the present Land Act 1994 unlike s 170 of the Crown Lands Act 1989(NSW) which expressly precludes claims for adverse possession of specified non freehold land. There is no mention of adverse possession in any version of the Queensland Land Acts and only s 6(4) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 makes it clear that “the right, title or interest of the Crown” in or to any land is not affected by any adverse possessor.It is against the background that the Court considered the right of an adverse possessor to a Crown lease.

The high price of hesitation where time of the essence

The decision of Lai v Soineva [2011] QSC 247 in relation to the operation of standard conditions in the Queensland REIQ contract highlights a very practical issue often overlooked in the heat of a transaction .The point is relatively simple. In this instance ,the case concerned the interpretation of the printed "Building and Pest Inspection Clause" but is of relevance to the printed "Finance Clause" in the same contract as the wording and principles are identical. It highlights the issue of knowing well what is in the standard contract and not making assumptions. The case also highlights the cost to a party of dithering in making an election in a time of the essence environment

Statutory right to rescind contract remained available to buyer subject to specific performance decree

The aftermath of the Queensland floods of January 2011 continues to be played out in the courts. The effect of the floods on such a large scale has awakened the use of some statutory provisions that have not previously been litigated .Section 64 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) is such a section. A version of this provision appears as s 34 of the Sale of Land Act 1982 (Vic). Broadly speaking, these sections permit a buyer of a dwelling house which has been damaged or destroyed between contract and completion to rescind the contract and recover their deposit provided that the rescission notice is given prior to "the date of completion or possession". The Court of Appeal decision of Dunworth v Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 200 appears to be the first litigation upon the application of the section since it came into force in 1975.

Submission to the ALRC copyright exceptions review issues paper

Australia should introduce a transformative use exception. Transformative use is an important part of the copyright balance: it provides a mechanism through which to balance the rights of past authors against the interests of future authors. In the interests of promoting creativity and innovation, the impact of copyright law on the ability of Australians to create new works should be minimised. The scope of a transformative use exception should be based primarily on demonstrable harm to the direct licensing interests of copyright owners – the core of copyright. Importantly, however, there are unresolved questions about fairness that need to be more clearly addressed before the appropriate scope of a transformative use exception can be determined. This submission does not directly address the desirability of introducing a broader fair use right. It is likely that an open ended fair use exception is required to provide a more adequate balance between copyright owners and non-transformative users of copyright. If a broad fair use style exception is introduced, it would likely be desirable to include transformative uses within that exception. This submission, however, takes the more limited position that regardless of whether a fair use exception is introduced, an exception that permits unlicensed transformative uses is required in Australian copyright law.

The effectiveness of the best interests duty : enhancing consumer protection?

This article considers the uncertainty surrounding the scope of the best interests duty which forms part of the Government’s Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) reforms. It is likely to be many years before the courts can interpret and clarify the content of the duty. Under the new regime, the provision of personal financial advice will be made more difficult, complex and costly and these costs will be passed on to consumers. The article also considers whether there will still be scope for delivering standardized, non-tailored advice in the light of the best interests duty. In the pas standardized advice has allowed large amounts of low-level, generic advice to be delivered very efficiently. In order to avoid breaching the best interests duty standardized advice should only be used rarely, and only after a careful assessment has been made to ensure that a standardized approach is appropriate.

Compensation covenants for mining activities run with the land : a win for successive landowners

The Queensland Supreme Court case of Cape Flattery Silica Mines Pty Ltd v Hope Vale Aboriginal Shire Council [2012] QSC 381 provides guidance on the long-term ramifications of compensation agreements for mining activities. The central issue considered by the Court was whether compensation payments relate to land and run with the land pursuant to s 53(1) of the Property Law Act.

Issues in negotiating a Carbon Sequestration Agreement for a Biosequestration Offsets Project

Biosequestration of carbon in trees, forests and vegetation is a key method for offsetting greenhouse gas emissions. To facilitate it, the Commonwealth has introduced the Carbon Farming Initiative, a scheme whereby carbon credits can be earned for biosequestration offsets projects. The project proponent must acquire under state law a ‘carbon sequestration right’ which confers the benefit of the sequestered carbon on the land. Each State provides for an agreement associated with the carbon sequestration right between the landowner and the holder of the right (‘carbon sequestration agreement’). This article identifies some key risks and issues that must be considered in the drafting of a carbon sequestration agreement to support the successful operation of a biosequestration offsets project.

Volunteers 'piggy-backing' on their private insurance : an uncertain protection against liability

Volunteering is a very important part of life in Australia with an estimated 36% of the adult population volunteering in 2010. Voluntary work generates economic benefits, addresses community needs and develops the social networks that form the backbone of civil society. Without volunteers, many essential services would either cease to exist or become too expensive for many people to afford. These volunteers, who by definition are not in receipt of any remuneration for their work and services, are exposed to personal injury and to legal liability in the discharge of their functions. It is therefore appropriate that statutory protection is extended to volunteers and that volunteer organisations procure public liability and personal accident cover where possible. However, given the patchwork quilt of circumstances where statutory or institutional cover is available to volunteers and the existence of many and diverse exclusions, it is important to have regard also to what scope a volunteer may have to avail themselves of protection against liability for volunteering activity by relying upon their own personal insurance cover. This article considers the extent of private insurance cover and its availability to volunteers under home and contents insurance and under comprehensive motor vehicle insurance. The most common policies in the Australian market are examined and the uncertain nature of protection against liability afforded by these policies is discussed. This uncertainty could be reduced should the Federal Government through amendments to the Insurance Contracts Regulations standardise the circumstances and extent to which liability protection was afforded to an insured holding home and contents insurance and comprehensive motor vehicle insurance cover.