On 21 September 2026, Sladen Legal a submission with Treasury on the exposure draft of proposed minimum tax on discretionary trusts that was released on 3 September 2026.

Who does a franchisor deal with when the people invested in a franchise are in dispute? How do you exit a joint venture if there is an irretrievable breakdown of a relationship? What is the effect of documents that refer to obligations in other documents? What conduct amounts to duress and allows you to escape an agreement? The Supreme Court of Queensland handed down its decision in SHRL Ventures Pty Ltd v Pedro-X Pty Ltd [2026] QCA 119 which provides an example of a situation where these questions arise and how a court determined these issues. This article discusses what happened and some of the major takeaways for those who find themselves in similar circumstances. .

The new Subdivision 126-C roll-over provides trustees with a three-year window to restructure without triggering immediate income tax consequences. The conditions attaching to that window may, however, prove difficult to satisfy in practice. This article summarises the roll-over provisions and identifies the matters trustees and advisers should consider before choosing this course.

Doyle’s Guide is a comprehensive and independent directory which showcases Australia’s best firms and lawyers. The 2026 listing of leading Victorian Wills, Estates & Succession Planning Law Firms details law firms practising within the areas of Wills, Estates and Succession Planning matters in the Victorian legal market who have been identified by their peers for their expertise and abilities in these areas.

The EET election lets discretionary trusts avoid the 30% minimum tax without restructuring, but the price is steep. One wrong distribution ends the election for good. This article examines the election: its conditions, its limits, and its risks for trustees and their advisers.

Returning to Australia after working overseas? Here’s what to consider if you have retirement savings held abroad.

In Part 2 of our two-part series, we examine the option of withdrawing your overseas pension or superannuation as a lump sum, including when it may be available and the key tax implications to consider.

Elect, restructure or pay 30%. Treasury's exposure drafts give trustees of discretionary trusts two ways to avoid the minimum tax, but both carry strict conditions. This article explains the new rules and tracks how they respond to the points we raised in our July submission to Treasury.

Family trust elections (FTEs), and the related interposed entity elections (IEEs), have been a feature of the tax law for almost 30 years with the rules effectively unchanged since 2007.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is an increasingly useful and ubiquitous tool.  However, for the time being, some things may perhaps be better left for mortals.  The recent decision in In the matter of Lanmar Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 800 provides a stark example of the dangers associated with an overreliance on AI and the impacts it can have on corporate governance and the ownership of shares in a business.

This article explains where it all went wrong in the case of Lanmar, a defence contractor, and the lessons that ought to be learned from the decision.

Settlement of a proceeding is not always the end of the dispute. The recent decision in Excel Texel Pty Ltd v Wilson (No 2) [2026] FCA 154, has important take aways with respect to matters that should be considered when navigating litigation and dispute resolution.

Returning to Australia after working overseas? Here’s what to consider if you have retirement savings held abroad.

In Part 1 of our two-part series, we explore transferring overseas super or pension benefits into an Australian super fund, including eligibility, tax implications, contribution caps and other key considerations.

Settlement agreements are not always effective to bring the dispute between the parties to an end. That is they do not ‘stick’, despite the efforts of the parties, their advisers, or others associated with formation of terms.

Merchant in a post-Budget world or when High Court anti-avoidance doctrine meets structural trust reform.

In Olsen, in the matter of Babyskin Laser & Cosmetic Clinic Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2026] FCA 622 the Court considered an application to extend the time to convene a second meeting of creditors and analysed the relevant factors to assess. This article breaks down the decision and what the relevant factors are.

In the case of Karlsson v Griffith University (No 2) [2026] FCAFC 102, the Full Federal Court of Australia determined it lacked the jurisdiction to retroactively extend the time for compliance with bankruptcy notices. This decision serves as an important reminder of the need for practitioners to carefully interpret statute to ensure compliance with prescribed deadlines.

In the case of Kim v JM World AU Pty Ltd (in liq) [2026] NSWCA 146, the NSW Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s finding against two directors for breach of directors’ duties in relation to, among other things, transfers of company funds to overseas related entities while the company was insolvent. Notably, the Court was split on the liability of one of the directors, who was entirely inactive throughout the entire process, the majority ultimately upholding the trial judge’s ruling against her.

AS Residential Property No. 1 Pty Ltd as trustee for AS Residential Property No, 1 Trust v Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] VCAT 648

Taxpayer successful in overturning a $36.2 million Windfall Gains Tax Assessment by applying the transition rules to show that the Minister had approved the rezoning prior to the 15 May 2021 announcement of the new tax.

The Franchise Disclosure Register is an important component of Australia’s franchising regulatory framework, designed to promote transparency and assist prospective franchisees in making informed decisions

ISPT Pty Ltd as trustee for ISPT Retail Australia Property Trust v Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] VSC 480

A new Victorian Supreme Court case has considered the landholder duty consequences where an acquisition of a 75.8% interest in a public unit trust schemes were initially not subject to duty, but became dutiable when combined with a subsequent 19.46% acquisition.  The first acquisition had caused the funds to cease to be public unit trust schemes.

This case examines the conduct of two directors who made misleading and deceptive future representations about the timeframe and expected profits of an investment project to potential investors and illustrates the standards of evidence and documentation needed to demonstrate a reasonable basis for such representations.