You will receive a receipt for your registration immediately and details for connecting to the webinar will soon follow.
We hope you enjoy the webinar and the content is of value.
On 11 March 2026, the High Court of Australia handed down its highly anticipated decision in Taylor v Killer Queen LLC [2026] HCA 5, allowing the appeal of Australian fashion designer Katie Jane Taylor and preserving her registered trade mark "KATIE PERRY" for clothing following an application to cancel the mark by world-famous pop superstar Katy Perry.
Stop the press on 11 February 2026, the Div 296 was introduced into parliament, now renamed to be Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026. This paper was drafted before the introduction of the Bill to parliament. We have therefore modified the paper to take into account the relatively minor changes.
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.
One of the key ways a liquidator receives remuneration is to draw these funds from the funds it accumulates in winding up the company to which they are appointed. However this can only occur in specific circumstances. The case of Auricht discusses the consequences for a liquidator if remuneration is not drawn in accordance with legislative requirements.
The recent R.C. Land Management Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] VSC 49 has considered the nature of trusts for Victorian land tax purposes and whether the Commissioner can infer the existence of trusts and impose tax accordingly.
The Victorian Supreme Court in its recent decision has refused the taxpayer leave to appeal the VCAT decision of Tao v Commissioner of State Revenue [2024] VCAT 637.
This upholds the decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal that imposed landholder duty on a change of shareholder and director of a trustee company and confirms the drastic widening of the landholder duty change of control provisions which no longer requires the acquisition of units or shares or any rights similar to share or unit ownership.
What happens if I get a land tax assessment or a vacant residential land tax assessment that I do not agree with? Can I appeal or object a land tax assessment or vacant residential land tax assessment?
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 task of assessing whether a claim may have expired due to the application of a statutory limitation period and how to substantiate a loss claimed if there is a viable claim is not always straightforward.
In the decision of R Lawyers v Mr Daily [2025] HCA 41, the High Court of Australia clarified when a limitation period will start running for professional negligence and the evidence needed to substantiate a claim for loss where negligence has been established in a case involving a binding financial agreement.
Justice Croft of the Supreme Court of Victoria removed a liquidator from the winding up of a company determining he failed to act honestly by settling unfair preference claims with the ATO and SRO without disclosing key information in Re Gemwood Projects Pty Ltd (in liq) [2025] VSC 819.
The recent decision by the QLD Supreme Court in Williams v Robba illustrates the importance of conducting a ‘claim-staking process’ to demonstrate that an SMSF trustee has given real and genuine consideration in exercising its discretion to pay superannuation death benefits.
