Equitable remedies for elder financial abuse in inter vivos transactions

Elder law is a growing area of legal practice due to the increasing numbers and proportions of older people in Australian society. The older generation has greater access to financial resources by way of retirement capital than ever before. Coupled with the current generation’s high level of debt and an increasing dependence on inheritances to meet these debts, this has created an environment in which the potential for elder financial abuse is increasing. This article examines how equitable remedies can be used as an avenue of redress for elder financial abuse. The effectiveness of these remedies, and in particular the prospect of a costs order being awarded against the perpetrator of the abuse in successful claims, may act as a deterrent and assist in preventing elder financial abuse from occurring.

A treatise on equity jurisprudence, as administered in the United States of America; adapted for all the states, and to the union of legal and equitable remedies under the reformed procedure,

The title of v. 6 (combined table of cases and index) is the same as the added titles of v. 4 and 5.

A treatise on equity jurisprudence, as administered in the United States of America; adapted for all the states, and to the union of legal and equitable remedies under the reformed procedure,

Paged continuously.

Cases on equitable remedies; interpleader, bills of peace, cancellation, removal of cloud on title, declaratory judgments,

"Table of statutes and rules of court": p. xv-xviii. "Table of legal treatises, etc., quoted": p. xix

Default, deadlock and remedies

The primary purpose of this chapter is to examine the effectiveness of common default provisions and the range of common law and equitable remedies available to a joint venture partner in the event of default by a co-venturer. Because of the various joint venture vehicles such as trusts, corporations, partnerships and others, it is proposed to deal only generally with these questions.

Are the financial services external complaints resolution schemes subject to judicial review?

In Australia seven schemes (apart from the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal) provide alternative dispute resolution services for complaints brought by consumers against financial services industry members. Recently the Supreme Court of New South Wales held that the decisions of one scheme were amenable to judicial review at the suit of a financial services provider member and the Supreme Court of Victoria has since taken a similar approach. This article examines the juristic basis for such a challenge and contends that judicial review is not available, either at common law or under statutory provisions. This is particularly the case since Financial Industry Complaints Service Ltd v Deakin Financial Services Pty Ltd (2006) 157 FCR 229; 60 ACSR 372 decided that the jurisdiction of a scheme is derived from a contract made with its members. The article goes on to contend that the schemes are required to give procedural fairness and that equitable remedies are available if that duty is breached.

Overstepping the fiduciary mark

The decision of Justice Boddice in The Public Trustee of Queensland (as Litigation Guardian for ADF) v Ban & Anor is the latest in a series of Supreme Court actions arising out of Ms Ban’s management of the affairs of her long-time elderly friend, ADF. Following on from an earlier decision in which it was determined that Ms Ban held her share of funds in a joint bank account with ADF on trust for him, this most recent case concerned a claim for an account of funds withdrawn from that account on the basis that as trustee Ms Ban owed fiduciary duties to ADF. The purpose of the accounting was to determine whether any withdrawals had been made in breach of trust, which would give rise to equitable remedies. The primary question for determination was therefore whether the withdrawals were applied for the benefit of ADF. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, his Honour found that although some transactions were for ADF’s benefit, substantial withdrawals, (including a significant portion of a $700,000 transfer), were not applied for his benefit, and were therefore made in breach of fiduciary obligation, giving rise to equitable rights and remedies.

Equity and Trusts in Principle [3rd ed.]

Equity and Trusts : in Principle, 3rd edition is updated and revised throughout. It addresses the principles of equity and trusts and provides a clear analysis of this area.

Lexis Nexis Questions and Answers : Equity and Trusts [4th Ed.]

"LexisNexis Questions and Answers: Equity and Trusts provides students with a clear and systematic approach to successfully analysing and answering assessment questions on equity and trusts. Each chapter commences with a discussion of key principles and issues including a summary of relevant leading cases and legislation for effective revision. Examples of written questions with fact scenarios follow, each with a suggested answer plan, sample answer and comments on how the answer might be viewed by an examiner. Readers are provided with advice on common errors to avoid when answering questions and practical hints and tips on how to achieve higher marks. Features • Summary of key issues helps students revise key areas before attempting problem questions • Sample questions with model answers assist students with effective exam study preparation"--publisher website

Principles of equity and trusts

The Principles of Equity and Trusts 3rd edition provides a comprehensive summation of the principles of equity, the law of trusts and equitable remedies. The book is designed to meet the needs of both students and practitioners.

It includes developments in areas such as the relationship between common law and equity, undue influence, tracing, interim injunctions, and resulting trusts. Covering the general principles associated with the equity and trusts jurisprudence, this textbook is useful for undergraduate study of the subject.

High quality/high equity systems of education: Curriculum, teachers and reform in the search for equitable outcomes for all students

The issue of what an effective high quality / high equity education system might look like remains contested. Indeed there is more educational commentary on those systems that do not achieve this goal (see for example Luke & Woods, 2009 for a detailed review of the No Child Left Behind policy initiatives put forward in the United States under the Bush Administration) than there is detailed consideration of what such a system might enact and represent. A long held critique of socio cultural and critical perspectives in education has been their focus on deconstruction to the supposed detriment of reconstructive work. This critique is less warranted in recent times based on work in the field, especially the plethora of qualitative research focusing on case studies of ‘best practice’. However it certainly remains the case that there is more work to be done in investigating the characteristics of a socially just system. This issue of Point and Counterpoint aims to progress such a discussion. Several of the authors call for a reconfiguration of the use of large scale comparative assessment measures and all suggest new ways of thinking about quality and equity for school systems. Each of the papers tackles different aspects of the problematic of how to achieve high equity without compromising quality within a large education system. They each take a reconstructive focus, highlighting ways forward for education systems in Australia and beyond. While each paper investigates different aspects of the issue, the clearly stated objective of seeking to delineate and articulate characteristics of socially just education is consistent throughout the issue.

The inherent equitable jurisdiction and the plenary power of the Supreme Court of New South Wales to order the winding up of companies

Not all companies in Australia are amenable to a winding up order pursuant to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The Supreme Court of New South Wales has previously dealt with such winding up applications by apparently focusing on the inherent jurisdiction of the court to consider whether the court has jurisdiction to firstly consider the winding up application. This article proposes an original alternative paradigm: the plenary power provided to the court by s 23 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) can be utilised to initially attract the jurisdiction of the court and subsequently the inherent jurisdiction specifically utilising the equitable “just and equitable” ground is available to the court to consider and make such a winding up order if appropriate. Variation of such a paradigm may also be available to the court when considering the inherent jurisdiction in relation to corporation matters more generally.