Incentivising tenants to stay the term – will clawbacks be enforceable?

Incentives are commonly offered by commercial landlords to tenants in the form of short term rent deductions or contributions to the tenant’s fitout. Usually these incentives are conditional upon the lessee remaining in the premises for the term of the lease with an obligation on the tenant to repay a proportion of the fitout contribution and rent deductions upon early termination or assignment. While the enforceability of clawback provisions has always been unclear, there was commercial benefit to landlords in maintaining high rentals on the face of the lease and attracting good quality tenants through fitout contributions. The use of clawback provisions as part of these incentives was recently analysed by the Queensland Supreme Court through the lens of the penalties doctrine in GWC Property Group Pty Ltd v Higginson & Ors [2014] QSC 264, with a negative outcome for the landlord. Unless the decision is overturned on appeal, the salient message for landlords is that repayment of incentives for any reason, not just a breach of the lease, is unlikely to be enforceable.

Protecting World Heritage sites from the adverse impacts of climate change : obligations for States Parties to the World Heritage Convention

Through its mandate to protect and preserve places of ‘outstanding universal value’, the World Heritage Convention provides an unlikely yet effective tool in global efforts to mitigate climate change. The practical efficacy of the Strategy to Assist States Parties to Implement Appropriate Management Responses (‘the Strategy’), which represents the World Heritage Committee’s primary response to the threats posed by climate change to World Heritage sites, is undermined by its weak stance on mitigation. This paper argues that the World Heritage Convention imposes stronger obligations on States Parties than those contained in the Strategy, including a duty on States Parties to commit to ‘deep cuts’ in greenhouse gas emissions. In order to ensure the continuing success of the World Heritage Convention States Parties must engage in extensive mitigation strategies without delay.

Equal shared parental responsibility and shared care post-return to Australia under the Hague Child Abduction Convention

This article explores the outcomes experienced by abducting primary carer mothers and their children post-return to Australia under the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.1 The circumstances faced by families that experience international parental child abduction are examined by considering how part VII of the Australian Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) is applied to resolve parenting disputes post-return. At present, the statutory criteria found in part VII encourage an equal shared parental responsibility and shared care parenting approach.2 This emphasis aligns children’s best interests with collaborative parenting3 and their parents living within close geographical proximity of each other to facilitate the practicalities of the approach.4 Arguably, these statutory criteria guide the exercise of judicial discretion to determine a child’s best interests towards a parenting arrangement that is incompatible with the lifestyle and functional characteristics of these families.

A study of outcomes post-return to Australia under the Hague Child Abduction Convention for abducting primary-carer mothers and their children

This article reports the findings of an empirical study of outcomes experienced by abducting primary-carer mothers and their children post-return to Australia under the Hague Child Abduction Convention. The study specifically focused on legal and factual outcomes post-return to Australia as the child's habitual residence. The study contributes an original critique of the Convention's operation by examining the collective operation of Convention return proceedings and Pt VII proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) post-return. Convention return proceedings, and the resolution of the substantive parenting dispute post-return to Australia, are not distinct stages operating in isolation. Viewing them as such is a purely theoretical exercise divorced from the reality of the lives of transnational families. Arguably, a better measure of the Convention's success is the outcomes it produces as part of the entire system designed to address the contemporary problem of international parental child abduction. When a child is returned to Australia this system includes the operation of Australian family law.

Putting the 'Personal' back into injury: An interpretation of Pt 3-5 of the ACL

There is an ongoing debate in relation to Part 3-5 of the ACL, particularly over its use in relation to other civil liability remedies. This article looks more closely at ss 138 and 139. It argues that, because of a possible design flaw in the statutory construction of s 138, it can be interpreted much more broadly than it has been to date. Also, the paper discusses the effect on an interpretation of s 139 ACL of both the High Court’s decision in Marks v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd, and a small but significant amendment to s 139 when the ACL was enacted. It argues that s 139 can now be interpreted broadly to include claims not just for loss of financial support or services but for all loss or damage or injury caused.

The genographic project: Traditional knowledge and population genetics

This article considers the debate over patent law, informed consent, and benefit-sharing in the context of biomedical research in respect of Indigenous communities. In particular, it focuses upon three key controversies over large-scale biology projects, involving Indigenous populations. These case studies are representative of the tensions between research organisations, Indigenous communities, and funding agencies. Section two considers the aims and origins of the Human Genome Diversity Project, and criticisms levelled against the venture by Indigenous peak bodies and anti-biotechnology groups, such as the Rural Advancement Foundation International. It examines the ways in which the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) grappled with questions of patent law, informed consent, and benefit sharing in relation to population genetics. Section three focuses upon the ongoing litigation in Tilousi v. Arizona State University, and the Havasupai Tribe v. Arizona State University. In this matter, the Havasupai tribe from the Grand Canyon in the United States brought legal action against the Arizona State University and its researchers for using genetic data for unauthorised purposes - namely, genetic research into schizophrenia, migration, and inbreeding. The litigation raises questions about informed consent, negligence, and larger matters of human rights. Section four explores the legal and ethical issues raised by the Genographic Project. It considers the aims and objectives of the venture, and the criticisms levelled against it by Indigenous communities, and anti-biotechnology groups. It examines the response of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to the Genographic Project. It charts the debate over the protection of traditional knowledge in various international fora. The conclusion recommends a number of measures to better regulate large-scale biology projects involving the participation of Indigenous communities.

The Down Under book and film remind us our copyright law’s still unfair for artists

Australian copyright law is broken, and the Australian Government isn’t moving quickly to fix it. Borrowing, quoting, and homage are fundamental to the creative process. This is how people are inspired to create. Under Australian law, though, most borrowing is copyright infringement, unless it is licensed or falls within particular, narrow categories. This year marks five years since the very real consequences of Australia’s restrictive copyright law for Australian artists were made clear in the controversial litigation over Men at Work’s 1981 hit Down Under. The band lost a court case in 2010 that found that the song’s iconic flute riff copied some of the 1934 children’s song Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gumtree. A new book and documentary tell us more about the story behind the anthem – and the court case. The book, Down Under by Trevor Conomy, and the documentary, You Better Take Cover by Harry Hayes, bring renewed interest and new perspectives on the tragic story.

Assessing testamentary capacity – who does it better? Lawyers or doctors?

The effects of mentally disabling conditions on legal capacity are escalating, particularly given the ageing Australian demographic. Wills, enduring powers of attorney, and advance health directives are coming to the fore as a means of ensuring that the wishes of people with regard to their property, finances and health care needs are respected should they become legally incapable of making their own decisions. Assessing when a person has lost legal capacity in this context is an ever-increasing concern facing society as a whole but, in particular, the legal and medical professionals conducting the assessments. Empirical and doctrinal research has been undertaken which canvassed legal and medical opinions about the relationship between members of these professions when assessing legal capacity. This research supports the hypothesis that tensions exist when assessing capacity, especially testamentary capacity. One source of tension is the effect of conflicting evidence about the loss of legal capacity given by legal and medical professionals in court, which raises questions such as: which evidence is, and should be, preferred; and who should be responsible? The exploration of these issues will be conducted with reference to the empirical data collected, and a review of the relevant Australian case law.

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.

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.

Accountability of insurers under s 54: Striking the balance between commerciality and consumer protection

Section 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) continues to occupy a prominent position in insurance-related litigation. This section which imposes a concept of causation, or prejudice to the insurer, to restrict an insurer’s reliance upon contractual terms to avoid liability for particular claims, is often before the courts. This note focuses upon the recent High Court of Australia decision in Maxwell v Highway Hauliers Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 33.

Accountability 30 years on: Insurance Contracts Act Reform

The Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) since inception has effected major reform to the law in this field. One of Australia’s most frequently cited pieces of legislation, it has had a major impact upon the law and practice of insurance. Given the importance of insurance to domestic and commercial activity and its pivotal position as a mechanism to manage exposure to risk, it is not surprising that this legislation has been the subject of extensive analysis in the courts and in legal literature. Furthermore the Act has, arising out of a 2009 review, been significantly amended by the Insurance Contracts Amendment Act 2013 (Cth). The principal amendments introduced are: two-fold: the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) has been amended so that a failure to comply with the duty of good faith is now a breach of the Act; and disclosure and misrepresentation provisions under the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) are amended and clarified.

"Re-thinking" the influence of regulatory capture in the development of government regulation

On 30 March 2015 the Australian Federal Government launched its "Re-Think" initiative with the objective of achieving a better tax system which delivers taxes that are lower, simpler and fairer. The discussion paper released as part of the "Re:think" initiative is designed to start a national conversation on tax reform. However, inquiries into Australia's future tax system, subsequent reforms and the introduction of new taxes are nothing new. Unfortunately, recent history also demonstrates that reform initiatives arising from reviews of the Australian tax system are often deemed a failure. The most prominent of these failures in recent times is the Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT), which lasted a mere 16 months before its announced repeal. Using the established theoretic framework of regulatory capture to interpret publically observable data, the purpose of this article is to explain the failure of this arguably sound tax. It concludes that the MRRT legislation itself, through the capture by the mining companies, provided internal subsidization in the form of reduced tax and minimal or no rents. In doing so, it offers an opportunity to understand and learn from past experiences to ensure that recommendations coming out of the Re:think initiative do not suffer the same fate.