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. 

In Re Clarinda (liq) [2023] VSC 109, parties sought the leave of the Court to use documents produced in an earlier proceeding to demonstrate the insolvency of the company. Justice Connock ultimately allowed the documents to be reproduced on the basis that the issues in dispute are the same, or substantially the same, and set out the special circumstances which substantiate this reproduction.

whether a lease of goods and bailment constituted a PPS lease within the meaning of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA).

The Victorian Supreme Court has confirmed that payment of funds into Court as security for costs will not give rise to a security interest required to be registered on the PPSR, even if the payment was made pursuant to consent orders. This means that section 267 of the PPSA will not assist external administrators to recover funds paid into Court as security for costs under a Court order.

On 17 August 2023, the Court of Appeal in the Victoria Supreme Court handed down its decision in Krongold v Thurin [2023] VSCA 191. This decision is a further instalment in a long running domestic building dispute between homeowners, David and Lisa Thurin (Thurin) and their builder, Krongold Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd (Krongold).

As the impact of COVID-19 continues to be felt across Australia, federal and state governments continue to take measures to stimulate the economy and provide financial assistance to taxpayers.