The High Court of Australia’s judgment in Mallonland Pty Ltd & Anor v Advanta Seeds Pty Ltd [2024] HCA 25 emphasised the significance of incorporating clearly written disclaimers on your product’s packaging to limit your liability for pure economic loss claims in negligence.

A company director’s request to redeem money from a unit trust has been rejected by the Court. The New South Wales Supreme Court ruling emphasises the need for clear documentation of intended transactions within a company structure.

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 Australian government has proposed reforms to the Competition and Consumer Act in response to the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct and Franchising Code of Conduct reviews. The consultation process closes on 4 October 2024 and welcomes submissions from interested stakeholders.

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.

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.

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.

Collective bargaining presents on its face an attractive option for franchisees. By joining forces and splitting negotiating costs, franchisees may be able to use collective power to strengthen their bargaining position and negotiate more favourable outcomes with their franchisor.

The ACCC has announced its enforcement and compliance priorities for 2024-2025. This article explores what this may mean for franchises.

This update replicates a legal update provided to the Franchise Council of Australia’s February breakfast at Kooyong Lawn Tennis Club.

On Thursday 16 November 2023, the Federal Court handed down the decision McD Asia Pacific LLC v Hungry Jack’s Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1412 (McD) where it was held the trade mark ‘BIG JACK’ and ‘MEGA JACK’ were not deceptively similar to McDonald’s registered trade marks ‘BIG MAC’ and ‘MEGA MAC’.

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.

The Full Federal Court decision in Advanced Holdings Pty Limited as Trustee for The Demian Trust v FCT [2021] FCAFC 135 highlights important principles of trust deed interpretation and the limitations of statutory provisions concerning the evidentiary force of company records.

It also serves as a “sobering bookkeeping reminder” to directors of small companies and corporate trustees to keep good records, and as always, read the trust deed!

In May 2015, the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office produced a report which was titled ‘Victoria’s Consumer Protection Framework for Building Construction’. The report was highly critical of the level of protection given to consumers in the domestic building space.

The Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Act) provides the Court with a relatively broad power to make orders in respect of a person that has breached any overarching obligation in the Act. In particular, section 29 of the Act gives the Court the discretion to sanction parties and/or lawyers by making costs orders against them. Yara Australia Pty Ltd v Oswal  (Yara) is one of the most publicised cases to examine the scope of the Court’s discretion under section 29 of the Act. 

Australia has for a long time been one of the only common law countries to enshrine a lawyer’s immunity from suit. The common law principle provides lawyers with an immunity from any claim made against them for negligence arising out of their conduct of a Court case and/or work undertaken outside of Court that results in a decision affecting the conduct of the case in Court. 

In the case of Stellard Pty Ltd & Anor v North Queensland Fuel Pty Ltd [2015], the Queensland Supreme Court recently held that negotiations via a chain of emails resulted in a binding contract, despite the email communication stating that the terms of agreement were subject to a signed contract. The judgment serves as a warning to those involved in the negotiation of a contract via email correspondence.

The recent case of Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd provides an interesting example of the application of Australia’s defamation laws to social media publications and matters of public interest.

Treasurer, Joe Hockey brought a defamation claim against three newspaper publishers in regards to articles published on 5 May 2014 in the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Canberra Times and online platforms controlled by those newspapers. The articles detailed the operations of a club, the North Sydney Forum and its connection to the Liberal Party. The articles said that through the North Sydney Forum, Mr Hockey was providing "privileged access" to a select group in return for donations to the Liberal Party without full disclosure to the election funding authorities. The words "Treasurer for Sale" or "Treasurer Hockey for Sale" were prominent in the articles. Although critical of the fundraising activities, the articles included some balancing comments and stated that the fundraising activities were legal.

A recent judgment of the New South Wales Supreme Court serves as an important reminder that verbal agreements can be just as enforceable as written agreements. In the case of Yulema Pty Ltd & Anor v Simmons & Anor [2015], the Supreme Court upheld contractual obligations imposed by a verbal agreement in October 2009. As a result, the defendant was required to pay the plaintiff approximately $350,000 plus interest from May 2011. It is significant to note that the Court upheld the agreement notwithstanding that one of the parties involved in the negotiations was unable to give evidence because they had passed away.

The unfair contract provisions under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) provide that terms in “standard form” contracts that are “unfair” under the legislation can be declared void. The provisions apply to contracts for the supply of goods or services or a sale or grant of an interest in land for personal, domestic or household use or consumption. There are similar provisions in the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001  applying to the sale of financial products and services.