Actions for declaratory or injunctive relief by the Corporate Regulator under s 471B of the Corporations Act

This article by Ben McEniery discusses the matters a court will consider when leave to commence or proceed against a company in liquidation is sought not by a creditor seeking to prove a debt, but by the corporate regulator pursuing declaratory or injunctive relief.

Civil Liability and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (Qld)

On 17 March 2010, the Civil Liability and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (Qld) was assented to.

Transfer of Title by a Non-Owner : Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) exceptions to the nemo dat quod non habet rule

The fundamental personal property rule – no one can transfer a better title to property than they had – is subject to exceptions in the Sale of Goods legislation, which aim to protect innocent buyers who are deceived by a seller’s apparent physical possession of property. These exceptions cover a limited range of transactions and are restrictive in their operation. Australia now has national legislation - the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) - which will apply to many transactions outside the scope of the Sale of Goods Act and which includes rules for sales by non-owners which will provide exceptions to the nemo dat quod non habet rule for many common commercial transactions. This article explores the effect of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) on the Sale of Goods exceptions, explains that the new provisions are so wide that there is little continuing relevance for the Sale of Goods Act exceptions, and indicates where they may still apply.

Surviving the Personal Property Securities Act (2009) Cth

Australia has new national legislation - the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) and the Personal Property Securities Regulations 2010 – which is expected to commence operating in February 2012. Previous personal property securities legislation was very complex, with more than seventy pieces of legislation in the states and territories, and more than forty registers. This reform package is the culmination of a process that began many years ago and various drafts have been the subject of much investigation and consultation. This legislation rationalises previous laws and bring about substantial changes to this area of law. This paper seeks to explain the principal changes and their implications.

Section 64 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) and the reluctant buyer

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Dunworth v Mirvac Qld Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 200 arose from unusual circumstances associated with the flood in Brisbane earlier this year. Maris Dunworth (‘the buyer’) agreed to purchase a ground floor residential apartment located beside the Brisbane River at Tennyson from Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd (‘Mirvac’). The original date for completion was 12 May 2009. In earlier proceedings, the buyer had alleged that she had been induced to purchase the apartment by false, misleading and deceptive representations. This claim was dismissed and an order for specific performance was made with a new completion date of 8 February 2011...

Legal Profession Act 2007 s 319 - Whether costs agreement made after trial valid and enforceable - whether agreement had retrospective operation

The decision in QCOAL Pty Ltd v Cliffs Australia Coal Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 479 involved an examination of a number of issues relating to the assessment of costs under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). The decision highlights a range of issues which, in slightly different circumstances, may have deprived the successful party of the right to recover costs by reference to the costs agreement.

Practice and procedure : a recent Court of Appeal case examines the meaning of 'third party payer' in terms of Part 3.4 of the Legal Profession Act 2007.

In Legal Services Commissioner v Wright [2010] QCA 321 the Queensland Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from the first instance decision. The decision involved the construction of “third party payer” in Part 3.4 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld).

Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, s 32 - Duty to Disclose - consequences of non-disclosure - discretion to excuse non-compliance

In Newson v Aust Scan Pty Ltd t/a Ikea Springwood [2010] QSC 223 the Supreme Court examined the discretion under s 32(2) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), to permit a document which has not been disclosed as required by the pre-court procedures under the PIPA to be used in a subsequent court proceeding. This appears to be the first time that the nature and parameters of the discretion have been judicially considered.

Demanding a change : time to act on statutory demands

The statutory demand procedure has been a part of our corporate law from its earliest modern formulations and it has been suggested, albeit anecdotally, that under the current regime, it gives rise to more litigation than any other part of the Corporations Act. Despite this there has been a lack of consideration of the underlying policy behind the procedure in both the case law and literature; both of which are largely centred on the technical aspects of the process. The purpose of this article is to examine briefly the process of the statutory demand in the context of the current insolvency law in Australia. This paper argues that robust analysis of the statutory demand regime is overdue. The paper first sets out to discover if there is a policy justification for the process and to articulate what that may be. Second, it will briefly examine the current legislation and argue that the structure actually encourages litigation which is arguably undesirable in the context of insolvency. In particular we will ask if the current rigid legal regime is appropriate for dealing efficiently with the highly charged atmosphere of contested insolvency. Third, it will examine suggested reforms in this area as to whether they might be a way forward.

To act or not to act : this is John's dilemma

The case proposes an ethical dilemma that a Public Service Director faces that could affect his career, the career of his boss, and the career of the governor of a state. There is a strong need for ethical leaders in this changing global organization world where the headlines are filled with stories of private sector and public sector leaders who have made serious ethical and moral compromises. It is easy to follow ethical leaders who you can count on to do what is right and difficult to follow those who will do what is expedient or personally beneficial. However, ethical leadership is not always black and white as this case will portray. Difficult decisions must be made where it may not always be clear what to do. The names in the case have been changed although the situation is a real one.