, , ,

Update on Franchise Non-compliance Enforcement Activity: Cash Converters, Mobile Travel Agents and RAMS franchise systems

, , ,
Update on Franchise Non-compliance Enforcement Activity: Cash Converters, Mobile Travel Agents and RAMS franchise systems

The ACCC has issued penalties to Cash Converters and Mobile Travel Agents for breaching the Franchising Code of Conduct by failing to update required information on the Franchise Disclosure Register.

Post the ASIC civil penalty proceedings against RAMS Financial Group over alleged systemic misconduct in its home loan operations a class action by former franchisees is now seeking to intervene in the ASIC matter, citing overlapping factual issues and concerns over reliance on Westpac’s internal findings.  #franchising #disclosure #franchisor_liability

, , ,

FCT v Bendel: one more piece but uncertainty remains

, , ,
FCT v Bendel: one more piece but uncertainty remains

On 12 June 2025, the High Court granted the Commissioner special leave to appeal the decision of the Full Federal Court in FCT v Bendel [2025] FCAFC 15 (Full Court Decision) that we wrote about here.

, , , ,

New South Wales case causes rethink on drafting of trust exclusion clauses

, , , ,
New South Wales case causes rethink on drafting of trust exclusion clauses

A New South Wales case has opened up a risk of taxpayers to surcharge rates of stamp duty and land tax for residential land held in family trusts where badly drafted foreign person exclusion clauses have been used.  This may require a complete review of all trust deeds to ensure that additional stamp duty and land tax imposts are not incurred.

, ,

Licenced to operate: What the ASIC v RAMS litigation offers about licence models applying to franchise systems

, ,
Licenced to operate: What the ASIC v RAMS litigation offers about licence models applying to franchise systems

The Schaper report in December 2023 recommended further evaluation of the merits of replacing the Franchising Code of Conduct with a licensing regime. This recommendation arose after a submission to the review by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Without detail of what a licensing regime may look like there is uncertainty about what any licensing regime may require. The recent case of ASIC v RAMS however provides an illustration of the effect a licensing regime may have on a franchisors. Click here to read more.

#franchising #licensing #franchisor_liability

, , , ,

Sladen Snippet - New Victorian Penalty Tax regime to hit taxpayers

, , , ,
Sladen Snippet - New Victorian Penalty Tax regime to hit taxpayers

The State Government has introduced a new bill to State Parliament to implement changes from the 2025-2026 Victorian State Budget.  Despite a promise of no new taxes or increased taxes, a new 50% penalty tax rate allows the State Revenue to impose higher penalties if it considers a taxpayer or their adviser has been “reckless”.

, , , ,

Imprecise Contracts and Good Faith: Lessons from Beecham Motors Pty Ltd v General Motors Holden Australia NSC Pty Ltd

, , , ,
Imprecise Contracts and Good Faith: Lessons from Beecham Motors Pty Ltd v General Motors Holden Australia NSC Pty Ltd

The language used in a contract can significantly impact its enforceability. Reliance on the incorporation of an obligation to act in good faith will not necessarily result in an outcome sought. This was considered in the recent Supreme Court decision in Beecham Motors Pty Ltd v General Motors Holden Australia NSC Pty Ltd, which provides guidance for those with or considering a franchise agreement and the drafters of franchise agreements. #franchise_agreements #good_faith #franchisee_group_action

, , , , ,

Victorian State Budget 2025-2026 - Tax Increases On The Way

, , , , ,
Victorian State Budget 2025-2026 - Tax Increases On The Way

The 2025-2026 Victorian State Budget contains no new taxes or increased taxes, however previously announced changes have been confirmed – including increases to the congestion/car parking levy and the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund levy.

, ,

Statutory Demands with Offsetting Claims and the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) : Can you Mix the Two?

, ,
Statutory Demands with Offsetting Claims and the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) : Can you Mix the Two?

On 6 March 2025, Associate Justice Barrett handed down his decision in the matter of Duke Ventures Wellington Street Pty Ltd [2025] VSC 75. In this case, the Court clarified when a debtor can rely on an offsetting claim to set aside a statutory demand in a dispute adjudicated under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) (SOPA).

#insolvency #statuory_demand  #creditors #securityforpayments

,

If Div 296 comes back – what should members and SMSFs do?

,
If Div 296 comes back – what should members and SMSFs do?

With the recent Labor election victory, and a potentially friendlier Senate, it is likely that the proposed Division 296 tax of an additional 15% on members with a $3 million or more total super balance (not indexed) will be enacted. See here for our previous commentary on the measure.

, , ,

FCT v Liang: Full Federal Court reaffirms taxpayer burden of proof

, , ,
FCT v Liang: Full Federal Court reaffirms taxpayer burden of proof

The Full Federal Court case of Commissioner of Taxation v Liang [2025] FCAFC 4 serves as a reminder that when challenging an ATO decision at a court or tribunal, it is the taxpayer who carries the burden of proving that an assessment is excessive and what the assessment should have been.

, ,

Sim - Spouse of Australian citizen triggers Victorian foreign purchaser additional duty

, ,
Sim - Spouse of Australian citizen triggers Victorian foreign purchaser additional duty

A Victorian foreign purchaser who bought a property in her own name with funding provided by her Australian spouse was unsuccessful in a VCAT request for exemption from foreign purchaser stamp duty surcharge in Sim v Commissioner of State Revenue [2025] VCAT 349.

, ,

Court authorises priority payment to funder of liquidator action recovering money for creditors

, ,
Court authorises priority payment to funder of liquidator action recovering money for creditors

The matter of Ford Kinter & Associates Pty Ltd v Reliance Franchise Partners Pty Ltd (in liq) [2025] FCA 139 emphasises the important role that creditors can play in facilitating asset recovery during insolvency proceedings. It further examines the broad discretionary powers the courts have under section 564 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act), which enables courts to reward creditors who take on the financial risks of litigation to be prioritised when recovering company property or expenses in a winding up due to the risk assumed by them. In doing so, the court considers the public interest in encouraging creditors to provide indemnities so as to enable assets to be recovered.

#insolvency #liquidation #creditors #publicinterest

, , , , ,

Franchisor Obligations for Communication with Franchisees: Lessons from Sec New Line Pty Ltd v Muffin Break Pty Ltd

, , , , ,
Franchisor Obligations for Communication with Franchisees: Lessons from Sec New Line Pty Ltd v Muffin Break Pty Ltd

Withholding information whilst negotiating agreements can amount to misleading and deceptive conduct. However, the recent Supreme Court decision in Sec New Line Pty Ltd v Muffin Break Pty Ltd provides important guidance on when silence will become deceptive, specifically in the context of lease and franchising renewals.

, , ,

AusNet v FCT and back-to-back rollovers: nothing else matters?

, , ,
AusNet v FCT and back-to-back rollovers: nothing else matters?

This article considers the views of the Full Federal Court in AusNet v FCT on the “nothing else” condition in Division 615 and what those views may mean for proposed ATO guidance on sequential transactions and the “nothing else” condition of a rollover.