The nature and scope of rights of removal

The rationale underlying the fixtures and accession presumptions is the need to protect the value of the chattel as well as the need to protect third-party interests. The destruction of the independent legal status of an attached chattel is generally deemed appropriate where the value of the co-mingled asset will be diminished if the chattel retains a separate legal title and this would generate unfairness because third parties have dealt with the co-mingled asset on the basis of its overall value. Rights to remove have evolved under both common law and equity to moderate the scope of these presumptions. Common law will uphold the right of a tenant to remove chattels that have been attached to leased premises during the currency of the lease. Equity on the other hand will uphold the right to remove affixed chattels in circumstances where the enforcement of such an entitlement is consistent with contractual intention and transactional fairness. This article examines the different rights of removal that have evolved under Australian law to date and the emergent statutory framework supporting these rights. It discusses the historical purpose and structural utility of these entitlements within a land framework that supports fixtures presumptions. Rights of removal, whether validated at law or in equity, confer positive entitlements upon the holder to access and remove affixed goods in circumstances where, because of the fixtures and accession presumptions, those goods no longer retain any separate legal status. The capacity of the holder to enforce this right against third parties is illustrative of their distinctive proprietary perspective.

Appropriation in the name of art: is a quotation exception the answer?

The Australian Law Reform Commission is at present considering the scope of exceptions to copyright infringement. Its consideration will no doubt be influenced to some degree by the outcome in EMI Songs Australia Pty Ltd v Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd (2011) 191 FCR 444; (2011) 90 IPR 50 which concerned the quotation of a musical phrase in a later musical work. This article addresses the problem of creative appropriations and the extent to which a quotation exception, consistent with Art 10 of the Berne Convention, should be incorporated into Australian law. In doing so it considers the practical application of such a quotation exception in European jurisdictions (most notably Germany) and suggests the form in which such an exception might be incorporated into Australian law.

Above and beyond: exploring outcomes and practices of Scope Southern Region Early Childhood Intervention Service for children with disability

This research project is an exploration of the early childhood intervention service (ECIS) provided by Scope Southern Region. The research seeks to examine the benefits and outcomes for families and children. In doing so, the project’s emphasis is on key practices such as family centred practice and transdisciplinary practice, while examining the enablers and barriers to providing positive benefits to families and children. The central question is whether the interventions are of assistance to families and children.

A shareholder’s contractual right to a dividend and a company’s oppressive conduct in withholding dividend payments: Sumiseki Materials Co Ltd v Wambo Coal Pty Ltd

Traditionally, a shareholder’s expectation of receiving a dividend has been limited by the discretion the board of directors has to recommend the appropriate amount of payment as a dividend. As a general rule, shareholders will only be entitled to a dividend after the dividend is declared (normally, at the general meeting), or when the actual date arrives for the dividend to be paid. Because courts were traditionally reluctant to interfere with the internal management of companies, the remedies available to shareholders to compel a company to declare a dividend were very limited. As a result, if the directors have decided to withhold dividend payment, courts will only make an order requiring dividends to be paid under very exceptional circumstances. In this article, the authors discuss the case of Sumiseki Materials Co Ltd v Wambo Coal Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 235, which is exceptional for the court’s recognition of a shareholder’s contractual right to a dividend. The article analyses the court’s approach, which found that withholding dividend payments was oppressive and unfairly prejudicial conduct of the company. It also discusses the significance of shareh9olders entrenching their rights in a company’s constitution, irrespective of the fact that a company has a statutory right to alter its constitution by way of a special resolution.

The High Court considers the meaning of “reasonable endeavours”: Electricity Generation Corp v Woodside Energy Ltd

The High Court in Electricity Generation Corp v Woodside Energy Ltd [2014] HCA 7 considered the contractual obligation to use reasonable endeavours. The court decided by a majority of four to one that various sellers of natural gas had complied with their obligation to use reasonable endeavours to supply gas to an electricity generator, despite not actually supplying the gas when the sellers had capacity to do so. The majority judgment provides some useful observations about the use of reasonable endeavours obligations and underscores the court's objective approach to construing commercial contracts.