When contracting parties agree that guarantees will also be provided, but the guarantor is not a party to the contract, is there an enforceable obligation to provide the guarantee? This article reports on the decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria of Boroondara City Council v ADCO Group Pty Ltd [2025] VSC 774 which had to consider this issue.

Knowing about legal professional privilege (LPP), when it applies and how it can be protected (and lost) is not something that may be on everyone’s radar on a day-to-day basis; by the time it is, it is usually already too late.

This article looks at a recent decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia concerning LPP and how LPP can be held and treated by more than 1 person: PK v The Salesian Society Inc [2025] SASC 208.

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. 

A recent Supreme Court decision has made it clear that there is nothing in the Retail Leases Act that restricts the issue of a certificate by the VSBC until after a mediation has been conducted and the absence of a mediation does not invalidate a certificate. The VSBC can form a view that a mediation is unlikely to resolve a dispute based on the refusal of one party to participate in a proposed mediation and issue a valid certificate so that an aggrieved party can commence proceedings in VCAT.