Blog Archives

the defendant must adduce proofs that raise a “more probable than not” inference in favour of what it urges; there must be a reasonable and definite inference available on the whole of the evidence; there must be something more than conflicting inferences of equal degrees of probability. And in assessing whether the defendant has satisfied its obligation, the Court must take into account the gravity of the matters alleged….

Taking into account the manner in which the appeal was conducted by the parties, each party’s criticism of the other, the fact that there was considerable merit in the case presented by each party which left me to make the final decision on balance by a very small margin, and all other relevant considerations, it is my view that, notwithstanding an outcome in favour of Mr Kelly, I ought to make no order as to costs. Each party should bear their own costs of the appeal.

– John Lesser Magistrate

“‘The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all
the forces of the Crown. It may be frail – its roof may
shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may
enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot
enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the
ruined tenement.’ So be it – unless he has justification
by law.”

However, what we are seeing more frequently is the erosion of that ‘limited liability’. In addition to their obligations under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the common law, directors may find themselves exposed to personal liability in certain circumstances for breaches of other laws by the company. For example:

The Australian ‘farm debt’, currently standing at $67 billion, has more than doubled over the past decade according to the Reserve Bank of Australia. Given that approximately 94% of this debt is owed to Australian banks, and in light of the fact that the farming sector’s debt-to-income ratio is currently sitting near a multi-generational high, reliance on the Farm Debt Mediation Act 1994 (NSW) (Act) in litigation proceedings is becoming increasingly prevalent.

If you operate in the automotive, franchise, food and grocery, government procurement, agriculture, health and medical fields, are a small business (or contract with a small business), provide products subject to consumer guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), or have to undertake a product recall, you could be in the sights of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) in 2016.

The outcome of this case has highlighted that organisations such as Standard & Poor’s require transparency and accountability in the formulation of the credit ratings that they assign to financial products

The New South Wales (NSW) coal seam gas (CSG) industry has effectively been at a standstill since March 2014 when the Government implemented a moratorium on the grant of new exploration licences

As a result if you can show the Court that you have met the above requirement, you would be deemed to have proved the matters required under section 52(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 and ipso facto a prima facie right to the sequestration order.

Following an investigation, the ACCC considered that the clause was an unfair contract term which was likely to contravene the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). The ACCC also considered that Exetel’s advertising of these fixed term plans was likely to be misleading because it represented that consumers would receive the service for the 12-month fixed term, when this was not necessarily the case.

%d bloggers like this: