Debts “incurred” by receivers, administrators and liquidators : the case for a harmonised construction of ss 419, 443A and 556(1)(a) of the Corporations Act

This article analyses the inconsistent approaches taken by courts when interpreting provisions of the Corporations Act which address debts or expenses “incurred” by receivers, administrators and liquidators. The article contends for a consistent construction of these provisions which will enable the legislation to operate (as was intended) for the benefit of persons who supply goods, services or labour to companies in external administration. The article explains how and why debts can be “incurred” by insolvency practitioners continuing on pre-existing contracts. Specifically, the article contends for a construction of ss 419 and 443A of the Corporations Act which renders receivers and administrators personally liable for certain entitlements of employees (eg, wages and superannuation contributions) which become due and payable by reason of the decision of a receiver or administrator to continue a pre-existing contract rather than terminate it.

Practice and Procedure : Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ss 131 and 237(1)

In Jacobs v Woolworths Limited [2010] QSC 24 Jones J was required to determine whether a worker who had lodged an application for compensation for an injury outside the time prescribed under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (“the Act”) was precluded from seeking common law damages for that injury. This determination depended upon the proper construction of s 131 of the Act, and what was to be understood by the words “worker who has not lodged an application for compensation for the injury” for the purpose of s 237(1)(d).

Legal Profession Act 2007 : entitlement to itemised bill – meaning of “client” – meaning of “third party payer”

In Legal Services Commissioner and Wright [2010] QSC 168 and Amos v Ian K Fry & Company, the Supreme Court of Queensland considered the scope of some of the provisions of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), including the definition of “third party payer” in s 301 of the Act.

Arbitration proceeding – determination of “market price” – subpoena under Commercial Arbitration Act 1990 s 17

AGL Wholesale Gas Ltd v Origin Energy Ltd [2008] QCA 366 involved an appeal against the setting aside of paragraphs of a subpoena issued under s 17 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1990 (Qld). The Court was satisfied that even if the documents were of “apparent relevance” to the subject matter of the proceedings, it would nevertheless be oppressive to require their production.

Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) : costs agreement between law practice and client - whether binding on non-associated third party payer

The decision in the New South Wales Supreme Court in Boyce v McIntyre [2008] NSWSC 1218 involved determination of a number of issues relating to an assessment of costs under the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW). The issue of broad significance was whether a non-associated third party payer must pay the fixed fee that was agreed between the law practice and the client. The court found that the client agreement did not form the basis of assessing costs for the non-associated third party payer.

Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 s 27(1) – duty of respondent to give information and documents

In Hare v Mount Isa City Council [2009] QDC 39 McGill DCJ examined the scope of s 27(1) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) and its interpretation by the Court of Appeal in Haug v Jupiters Ltd [2008] 1 Qd R 276. The judge expressed a number of concerns about the Act and the Regulation made under it, that are worthy of consideration by the Legislature.

Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) s 253 – whether refusal to stay execution of costs is an order “as to costs only”

In Virgtel Ltd v Zabusky [2009] QCA 92 the Queensland Court of Appeal considered the scope of an order “as to costs only” within the meaning of s 253 of the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) (‘the Act”). The Court also declined to accept submissions from one of the parties after oral hearing, and made some useful comments which serve as a reminder to practitioners of their obligations in that regard.

Setting aside default judgment - whether judgment regularly or irregularly entered - service under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s109X(1) - requirements for affadavit of service

In Hill v Robertson Suspension Systems Pty Ltd [2009] QDC 165 McGill DCJ considered the procedural requirements for the service of originating process on a company, and for proving that service for the purpose of obtaining default judgment.The judge’s views adopt a strict and technical construction of the requirements for an affidavit of service under r 120(1)(b). Though clearly obiter, they may well affect the approach taken on applications to enter or set aside default judgments in the lower courts. Pending further judicial consideration of the issue, it is suggested the prudent course is to ensure that the deponent of an affidavit for service effected under s 109X(1)(a) of the Act deposes not only to the location of the registered office of the company but also, at a minimum, provides the source of that information.

UCPR 229 - defamation proceedings – damages to be assessed – application to interrogate as to defendant’s motive - implications of Defamation ACT 2005 - application to interrogate before action - when in the interests of justice

In Hogan v Ellery [2009] QDC 154 McGill DCJ considered two applications for leave to deliver interrogatories under r 229 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR). The judgment provides useful analysis of the circumstances in which a plaintiff may obtain leave to deliver interrogatories to a defendant in defamation proceedings, and also to a non-party before action.

Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) s 253 - leave to appeal costs orders - appeal against substantive judgment insufficient - must be arguable case that discretion will be overturned on appeal

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in AGL Sales (Qld) Pty Ltd v Dawson Sales Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 262 provides clear direction on the Court’s expectations of a party seeking leave to appeal a costs order.This decision is likely to impact upon common practice in relation to appeals against costs orders. It sends a clear message to trial judges that they should not give leave as of course when giving a judgment in relation to costs, and that parties seeking leave under s 253 of the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) should make a separate application. The application should be supported by material presenting an arguable case that the trial judge made an error in the exercise of the discretion of the kind described in House v King (1936) 55 CLR 499. A different, and interesting, aspect of this appeal is that it was the first wholly electronic civil appeal. The court-provided technology had been adopted at trial, and the Court of Appeal dispensed with any requirement for hard copy appeal record books.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 : restrictions on the creation of “saviour siblings” and the relevance of the harm principle

This paper provides an overview of the regulatory developments in the UK which impact on the use of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and embryo screening techniques for the creation of “saviour siblings.” Prior to the changes implemented under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, this specific use of IVF was not addressed by the legislative framework and regulated only by way of policy issued by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). Following the implementation of the statutory reforms, a number of restrictive conditions are now imposed on the face of the legislation. This paper considers whether there is any justification for restricting access to IVF and pre-implantation tissue typing for the creation of “saviour siblings.” The analysis is undertaken by examining the normative factors that have guided the development of the UK regulatory approach prior to the 2008 legislative reforms. The approach adopted in relation to the “saviour sibling” issue is compared to more general HFEA policy, which has prioritized the notion of reproductive choice and determined that restrictions on access are only justified on the basis of harm considerations.

Preventing the selection of “deaf embryos” under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 : problematizing disability?

Section 14(4) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 imposes – within the general licensing conditions listed in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 – a prohibition to prevent the selection and implantation of embryos for the purpose of creating a child who will be born with a “serious disability.” This article offers a perspective that demonstrates the problematic nature of the consultation, review, and legislative reform process surrounding s 14(4). The term “serious disability” is not defined within the legislation, but we highlight the fact that s 14(4) was passed with the case of selecting deaf children in mind. We consider some of the literature on the topic of disability and deafness, which, we think, casts some doubt on the view that deafness is a “serious disability.” The main position we advance is that the lack of serious engagement with alternative viewpoints during the legislative process was unsatisfactory. We argue that the contested nature of deafness necessitates a more robust consultation process and a clearer explanation and defence of the normative position that underpins s 14(4).

Editorial: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008

This editorial first describes the workshop out of which the present special issue arose. The editors then identify the need for a multidisciplinary collection examining the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 from both legal and political perspectives, including the consultation process, campaigning and parliamentary debates leading to its passage, and the concluded legislation and its effects. The editorial provides an overview of the legislative reform process, key legislative changes, and the various contributions to the special issue. Cross-cutting themes include the value of a qualitative, discourse-based approach to research in this area; the need to understand the 2008 Act in historical context; unforeseen practical implications of the legislative provisions; and silences and missed opportunities in the legislation. Finally, a postscript covers the changing landscape of hybrid embryo research since the passage of the Act, and the uncertain future of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority at the time of writing.

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - request for information

In Angus v Conelius [2007] QCA 190 the Queensland Court of Appeal concluded that the obligations under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), and in particular s 45 of the Act (duty of claimant to cooperate with insurer), continue beyond the commencement of court proceedings