The Property Agents and Motor Dealers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 (Qld) (Bill) was introduced to Parliament on 24 March 2010.
On 17 March 2010, the long debated and long awaited amendment bill became law. The Act is really something of a compromise, attempting to balance the interests of injured Queenslanders, while at the same time maintaining the financial viability of the schemes to which the Act applies. As with any compromise, not everyone will be happy. Further reform will no doubt continue to be agitated by both sides to the litigation equation.
In Noonan v MacLennan & Anor [2010] QCA 50 the Queensland Court of Appeal prevented defamation litigation from continuing because of a failure to comply with the strict time limits imposed by the Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) (LAA).
A recent decision from the New South Wales Court of Appeal highlights the complications that can come with giving money to family members on conditions without proper safeguards.
The Federal Government is expected to introduce new laws in mid 2010 which will require the disclosure of energy efficiency information for commercial office buildings.
Traditionally, non-profit organisations that promote the change of government law or policy have struggled to qualify for charitable tax concessions. That may be set to change with the High Court of Australia’s grant of special leave to appeal in the case of Aid/Watch Incorporated v Commissioner of Taxation [2010] HCATrans 58.
The case of ASIC v Rich provides us all with some valuable commentary on directors duties and the potential application of the business judgment rule.
The New South Wales Supreme Court recently handed down a controversial decision which highlights the importance of keeping registered office details up to date and ensuring legal notices are brought to the attention of recipients.
There is a perception that courts sometimes “bend over backwards” to assist self acting parties. Few would dispute the social utility of courts assisting self acting parties, provided that the interests of justice are not compromised. This case highlights however that courts will not shy away from applying sound legal principle even where the consequences for the self acting party are potentially dire.
The recent Supreme Court of Queensland case of National Vegetation Management Solutions Pty Ltd -v- Shekar Plant Hire Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 3 highlights the need to be cautious when dealing with payment claims under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) (BCIPA).
The recent case of Martinek Holdings Pty Ltd -v- Reed Construction (Qld) Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 328 confirms that a Superintendent’s certificate does not automatically override an adjudicator’s decision under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2001 (Qld).
Westina Corporation Pty Ltd (Westina) was a haulage contractor trading under the name “Jamieson Transport”. In 2005 it hired a road train comprising a prime mover and three trailers to BGC Contracting (BGC) pursuant to the terms of a written “wet hire” agreement. The wet hire agreement obliged Westina to provide the services of a qualified operator for the road train.