Legal news
The High Court deemed a tertiary college’s enrolment processes to be unconscionable for creating a risk of unsuitable student enrolment and found that senior management may be held liable as accessories for the actions of the business if they were aware of the primary matters which made the conduct unreasonable.
The Federal Court of Australia’s judgment in ASIC v Retail Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd highlights that if a corporation honestly relies on advice from their lawyers that may provide reasonable grounds to defend the making of a representation that concerns the present state of affairs.
The Federal Court found that representations made by Retail Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd (REST) regarding their rules and practice were opinions expressed as to the law based on reasonable grounds due to reliance on advice received from their lawyers and other trusted sources. Therefore, the representations made could not amount to misleading or deceptive conduct.
The specific wording of a contract is crucial to its interpretation and may be beneficial or a trap to parties. Many parties fail to understand the implications that the well-known phrase ‘subject to contract’ will have on their agreements. Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353 is the leading Australian case which examines the consequences of certain wording on parties to a contract, and whether such wording leads to an enforceable and binding contract.
The most common basis upon which creditors make an application to wind up a company and appoint liquidators is upon the non-compliance with a Creditor’s Statutory Demand. If the debtor company ignores the Creditor’s Statutory Demand and no payment or compromise is reached then the company is presumed insolvent, paving the way to wind up the company.
This article contains an explanation of the steps required when lodging an application for winding up in these circumstances, as well as some helpful tips to navigate the process effectively.
The Federal Court decision of Connelly v Papadopoulos re TSK Pty Ltd (in liq) highlights some of the implications for professional advisers. directors and officers involved in restructuring of companies and the risks encountered when engaging in restructuring that may be later viewed as asset stripping schemes under the creditor defeating dispositions provisions in the Corporations Act.
If you have been declared bankrupt, or are looking to recover debt from an individual or company that has been declared bankrupt, you may be wondering what happens to debts following a declaration of bankruptcy.
This article sets out what debts are and are not recoverable from a bankrupt person, including specific debts which survive bankruptcy and remain recoverable by creditors even after the bankruptcy ends.
The Federal Court of Australia has made a ruling that a trustee for a bankrupt estate is liable to pay capital gains tax derived from the sale of the bankrupts real property. The judgement of Robson as trustee for the bankrupt estate of Lanning v Commissioner of Taxation [2024] FCA 720 confirmed that the obligations contained in section 254 Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) extend to the trustee of a bankrupt estate acting in a representative capacity.
On 1 August 2024, the Magistrates Court of Queensland found Peak Physique Franchisor Group Pty Ltd (Peak Physique) engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and was in breach of section 18 Australian Consumer Law through its conduct which induced the purchase of one of their premises through representations of ongoing support to the franchisee and the profitability of the franchise purchased.
On 28 August 2024, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) published Draft Practical Compliance Guideline PCG 2024/D2 (Draft PCG) on Personal services businesses and Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.
On 18 January 2023 the Federal Court of Australia handed down its decision in Copeland in his capacity as liquidator of Skyworkers Pty Limited (in Liquidation) v Murace [2023] FCA 14. The decision resulted in Liquidator’s insolvent trading claim against Mr Murace being struck out and costs awarded to the defendant, although the liquidator was then allowed to file a further statement of claim.
Guidance has been provided to liquidators by the Federal Court of Australia in Stone (Liquidator), in the matter of RIC Admin Pty Ltd (in liq) v Mandalinic (No 2) regarding the analysis of financial records required to determine the solvency of a company and what conduct of a director will constitute an unreasonable director related transaction.
