Joint ventures and the Competition and Consumer Act

The purpose of this chapter is to analyse the way in which joint venture agreements can fall within the competition provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and the circumstances in which authorisation may be available for joint venture collaborations.

Intellectual Property and Joint Ventures

Following upon the success of the 2nd edition published in 2005, this new edition not only updates its predecessor but also adds considerable new material in consequences of changes in the law generally and commercial approaches to financing joint ventures in particular. Of special note are the following: Financing of Joint Ventures has been completely re-written with considerable additions to take account of the new legislative regimes such as the Personal Property Securities, the impact of climate change legislation, specifically carbon pricing with additional material on structuring generally and particularly in relation to large joint ventures with governments through Public Private Partnerships. A new Chapter called Resources Joint Ventures undertakes a thorough analysis of a typical resources joint venture and is heavily cross referenced into the chapter on Default which has also been updated. International Joint Ventures now includes additional material on structuring and dispute resolution. Joint Ventures and the Competition and Consumer Act has been substantially re-written to take account of 2009 legislative amendments on cartel conduct, and the impact of changes wrought by the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. All other chapters and material has been updated to accommodate other legislative changes and new case law over the seven years since the last edition.

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.

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.

The legal effect of settlement statements

The decision of Carrapetta v. Rado [2012] NSWCA 202 raises a short but very practical point relating to the right to deliver a notice to complete or have otherwise called for completion where time is of the essence of the contract in circumstances where a settlement statement subsequently sent from the seller has overstated the amount owing under the contract. It was common ground , following the oft quoted High Court decisions of Neeta (Epping) Pty Ltd v Phillips(1974) 131 CLR 286 and Louinder v Leis (1982) 149 CLR 509 that a Notice to Complete which called for completion outside the terms of the contract would be invalid. These decisions also further confirm the long accepted principles that a seller who is not “ready willing and able” to perform all their obligations or who is otherwise in breach of contract at the time could not deliver a Notice to Complete (at[27]).The issue in this case did not so much concern the efficacy of the Notice to Complete at the time was delivered ,but the legal effect upon the Notice to Complete of the later delivery of a settlement statement for what the buyer considered to be performance beyond that required by the contract.

Regulation of emissions under the carbon pricing mechanism : a case study of Australia’s coal fired electricity sector

On 1 July 2012, the carbon pricing mechanism commenced in Australia with the aim of reducing emissions and encouraging investment in clean energy. A substantial proportion of Australia’s emissions are attributable to the coal-fired electricity generation sector. This article examines whether the carbon pricing mechanism will effectively facilitate emissions reduction from the coal-fired electricity sector. Aspects analysed include the legislative constraints placed on the carbon price, the carbon pollution cap and provisions specific to the coal-fired electricity sector, such as transitional assistance. It is concluded that, in practice, the carbon pricing mechanism may not be sufficient in itself to achieve significant reduction in emissions from coal-fired electricity generation or significant investment in clean energy, and that a suite of additional regulatory measures, such as the federal Renewable Energy Target, should operate in conjunction with the mechanism.

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.

From rights to responsibilities : reconceptualising carbon sequestration rights in Australia

Biosequestration of carbon in trees, forests and vegetation is a key method for mitigating climate change in Australia. To facilitate this, all States have enacted legislation for carbon sequestration rights, separating commercial rights in carbon from ownership of the land, trees and vegetation in which the carbon is sequestered. Ownership of carbon sequestration rights under state law is a prerequisite for the issue of carbon credits to proponents of ‘eligible sequestration offsets projects’ under the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 (Cth) (‘Carbon Farming Act’). This article examines the extent to which current State carbon sequestration rights support the offsets regime established by the Carbon Farming Act. The Commonwealth Act is concerned with allocating responsibilities to ensure the maintenance of the carbon sequestration, while the State Acts confer commercial rights in the carbon and leave the responsibilities to be allocated by private agreements. The carbon sequestration rights as defined by state laws do not confer the rights of access and management over land that a project proponent needs in order to discharge its responsibilities to maintain the carbon sequestration.

The Law of Real Property Mortgages [2nd. Ed.]

This book examines the principles and practice of real estate mortgages in an easily accessible text referenced to all the Australian States. It specifically deals with the major theoretical and practical aspects of the land mortgage, including vitiating factors in formation, mortgagees’ powers and duties and mortgagors’ rights – both statutory and other – as well as assignment, insurance and discharge. It focuses exclusively on real estate mortgages and provides a thorough account of the law through analysis of the plethora of court decisions and statutory provisions in this area. Duncan and Dixon analyse the substance of the mortgage transaction from creation through to rights of enforcement. In its detailed consideration of the rights and obligations of mortgagors and mortgagees, it covers topics such as priorities and tacking, insurance, variation and assignment, rights of discharge, entry into possession, foreclosure and power of sale. In addition, the book contains a separate chapter on factors that may affect the validity and enforcement of a mortgage, together with separate consideration of a mortgagee’s right to enforce a guarantee provided on behalf of a mortgagor, and the rights and liabilities associated with a receivership regime initiated by