The recent Federal Court decisions of Australian Competition Consumer Commission v Jewellery Group Pty Limited and Australian Competition Consumer Commission v Jewellery Group Pty Limited (No 2) illustrate why caution is needed when advertising price reductions.
Bank of Queensland Ltd (BOQ) held a FinancialGuard Professional Services Insurance policy (the policy) with Chartis Australia Insurance Ltd (Chartis). BOQ made a claim on the policy after proceedings were commenced against it by a third party for breaches of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth), Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) and Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (the third party claim).
It is well known that challenging decisions made by adjudicators under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) (BCIPA) is very difficult.
The scales of costs in the Magistrates, District and Supreme Courts of Queensland have been increased by 4.9% to account for changes in the consumer price index since the last adjustment in 2010.
The recent decision of Livesay v Hawkins [2012] QSC 122 is a timely reminder of the importance of notifying insurers of potential claims. It shows how even equivocal letters of complaint can amount to a ‘claim’ that requires notification.
A Victorian Supreme Court judge has delivered a pointed reminder about the rules on orders for recovery of legal costs in litigation.
When a commercial tenant moves out, it is not uncommon for the landlord and tenant to come to an arrangement about the outgoing tenant’s make-good obligations that takes account of the incoming tenant’s fit-out requirements. For example, the parties will often agree that, instead of restoring the premises to their original condition, the outgoing tenant can simply make a financial contribution to the incoming tenant’s fit-out.
Despite growth in the excess insurance sector, the rights of excess layer insurers are yet to be fully canvassed by Australian courts.
On 15 June 2012, the Federal Court handed down a decision on the penalty for an internet service provider’s misleading and deceptive advertising. The judgment contains a warning to other Australian businesses.
On 20 March 2012, the Federal Court reiterated the legal principles to be applied in matters involving negligent, misleading or deceptive property valuations in the decision of Propell National Valuers (WA) Pty Ltd v Australian Executor Trustees Limited [2012] FCAFC 31.
Generally, an eligible person will succeed in a challenge to a Will if they have been left without adequate provision and they can demonstrate some financial need. Provision will not usually be refused except in exceptional circumstances, such as where there are minimal assets in the estate or where there has been disentitling conduct.
In Lipman Pty Limited v. Emergency Services Superannuation Board [2010] NSWSC 710, the New South Wales Supreme Court held that an expert determination made under a construction contract was binding on the parties.