FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA"

Transcription

1 FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Caratti v Commissioner of Taxation [2016] FCA 754 File number: NSD 792 of 2016 Judge: ROBERTSON J Date of judgment: 29 June 2016 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the Commissioner from taking recovery action in respect of first applicant s taxation debt Deed whereby the Commissioner agreed to forbear from undertaking such recovery action in exchange for securities given in accordance with the Deed and on the terms and conditions set out in the Deed whether applicants had complied with obligations under the Deed alternatively, if there was an Event of Default, was the Commissioner entitled to exercise his rights to commence recovery action or was a further notice required whether applicants had shown a sufficient likelihood of success to justify in the circumstances the preservation of the status quo pending the trial INCOME TAX application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the Commissioner from taking recovery action in respect of first applicant s taxation debt Deed whereby the Commissioner agreed to forbear from undertaking such recovery action in exchange for securities given in accordance with the Deed and on the terms and conditions set out in the Deed whether applicants had complied with obligations under the Deed alternatively, if there was an Event of Default, was the Commissioner entitled to exercise his rights to commence recovery action or was a further notice required whether applicants had shown a sufficient likelihood of success to justify in the circumstances the preservation of the status quo pending the trial HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT jurisdiction of Federal Court Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B(1) application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the Commissioner from taking recovery action in respect of first applicant s taxation debt Deed whereby the Commissioner agreed to forbear from undertaking such recovery action in exchange for securities given in accordance with the Deed and on the terms and conditions set out in the Deed whether jurisdiction with respect to

2 any matter in which an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth whether jurisdiction in a matter arising under a law made by the Parliament Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 127 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 39B(1), 39B(1A), 78B Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) Part IVC, Sch 1 ss 255-1(1), 255-5, Cases cited: Australian Broadcasting Commission v O Neill [2006] HCA 46; 227 CLR 57 Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd [1968] HCA 1; 118 CLR 618 CGU Insurance Limited v Watson (Trustee) in the matter of Greaves [2008] FCA 1104 Laurie v Carroll [1958] HCA 4; 98 CLR 310 LNC Industries v BMW Australia [1983] HCA 31; 151 CLR 575 Date of hearing: 16 June 2016 Date of last submissions: 23 June 2016 Registry: Division: National Practice Area: Category: New South Wales General Division Taxation Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 48 Counsel for the First, Second and Third Applicants: Solicitor for the First, Second and Third Applicants: Counsel for the Respondent: Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr ML Robertson QC with Mr G Antipas Zafra Legal Mr M Brabazon SC with Mr B Le Plastrier Australian Government Solicitor

3 ORDERS NSD 792 of 2016 BETWEEN: ALLEN BRUCE CARATTI First Applicant APPLEY HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN ) AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BYFORD TRUST Second Applicant PLATINUM SKY PTY LTD (ACN ) Third Applicant AND: THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION Respondent JUDGE: ROBERTSON J DATE OF ORDER: 29 JUNE 2016 THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. On the usual undertaking as to damages given by the applicants to the Court, until further order, the respondent be restrained from taking recovery action as referred to in clauses 6.1, 6.5 and 6.6 of the Deed of Agreement between the parties dated 23 September The respondent pay the applicants costs of the interlocutory application, as agreed or taxed. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

4 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ROBERTSON J: Introduction 1 By application filed on 26 May 2016, the applicants applied for an interim injunction restraining the respondent, the Commissioner of Taxation (the Commissioner) from taking recovery action against or in respect of the Applicants on the purported basis that there is an existing Event of Default under the Deed of Agreement between the Applicants and the Respondent dated on or about 23 September 2015 ( the Deed ) until further order. 2 Under the Deed, the Commissioner agreed to forbear from undertaking recovery action in respect of the first applicant s taxation debt in exchange for securities given in accordance with the Deed and on the terms and conditions set out in the Deed. 3 The applicants claimed they had complied with their obligations under the Deed, whereas the Commissioner said that they had not. Alternatively, the applicants claimed that if there was an Event of Default as defined in the Deed, the Commissioner was not entitled to exercise his rights to commence recovery action as the requisite notice had not been given under the Deed. The Commissioner denied that construction of the Deed which required him to give a further notice. Jurisdiction 4 I raised with the parties what was said to attract the jurisdiction of the Court in that, although an injunction was sought against an officer of the Commonwealth, the injunction appeared to be sought in aid of a claim having its basis in the Deed. 5 When read with the Deed, and I would so read it, it is arguable that the application seeks to prevent the Commissioner from exercising all his statutory powers of recovery or enforcement under the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), in respect of Amended Assessments and Penalty Notices for the years of income ended 30 June 2009, 30 June 2010 and 30 June 2011, presently being challenged in proceedings under Part IVC of that Act. On that basis, perhaps the Court would have jurisdiction under s 39B(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) being jurisdiction with respect to any matter in which an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth. The difficulty would be whether an injunction would lie under s 75(v) or s 39(B)(1) for non-jurisdictional error, particularly a case that

5 - 2 - involves claims of breach of the terms of a deed between the applicants and the Commissioner. 6 I prefer to approach the question of jurisdiction on the basis that, as submitted by the Commissioner in supplementary submissions made by leave and dated 20 June 2016, the proceedings are an attempt to prevent the enforcement of rights arising under a Commonwealth statute, especially enforcement by methods provided for in a Commonwealth statute, and this means that there is a matter arising under a law made by the Commonwealth Parliament for the purposes of s 39B(1A)(c): see LNC Industries v BMW Australia [1983] HCA 31; 151 CLR 575 at 581. As submitted by the Commissioner, the combined effect of served notices of assessment and ss 255-1(1) and of Sch 1 to the Taxation Administration Act is that there is a debt due to the Commonwealth on the part of the taxpayer, Mr Caratti, which the Commissioner has the right to recover. The applicants fear that the Commissioner may take steps to enforce that right, either by bringing proceedings in the way contemplated by s 255-5(2), or by exercising his other statutory powers under provisions such as s The applicants seek to prevent such recovery action. Those submissions were not contradicted by the applicants in their supplementary submissions made by leave and dated 23 June On that basis I find that the Court has jurisdiction and that the issue of a notice under s 78B of the Judiciary Act is not necessary. Discretionary matter 7 A second matter I raised with the parties was whether the Court should exercise its jurisdiction as a matter of discretion, founded on comity, in light of the fact that the Commissioner had commenced proceedings for the recovery of the outstanding tax debts in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, before the proceedings were commenced in this Court. In CGU Insurance Limited v Watson (Trustee) in the matter of Greaves [2008] FCA 1104, although not necessary for her Honour s decision, Branson J referred, at [16], to the circumstances in which it might be appropriate for this Court, in the interests of justice, to issue an injunction to restrain a litigant from taking steps in Supreme Court proceedings. Her Honour said that considerations of comity between Australian superior courts suggested that an injunction of that kind will not lightly be made. 8 It was common ground between the parties in the present case that the writ filed by the Commissioner in the Supreme Court of Western Australia had not been served and, indeed, that there is an interlocutory order of this Court, by consent, that the Commissioner not serve

6 - 3 - the writ pending the hearing and determination of the present interlocutory application. On the basis that the mere issue of the writ, without service of it, does not relevantly enliven the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (see Laurie v Carroll [1958] HCA 4; 98 CLR 310), and on the additional consideration that the Commissioner does not raise this issue of discretion, I proceed to consider the interlocutory application on its merits. The relevant principles 9 In Australian Broadcasting Commission v O Neill [2006] HCA 46; 227 CLR 57 at [65] Gummow and Hayne JJ set out a statement of the relevant principles concerning when to order an interlocutory injunction. Their Honours said that it was sufficient that the plaintiff in that case show a sufficient likelihood of success to justify in the circumstances the preservation of the status quo pending the trial. With reference to the inquiry as to whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, their Honours approved an observation made by Kitto J in the course of argument in Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd [1968] HCA 1; 118 CLR 618 at 620 (see also the decision of the Court at 622) that how strong the probability needed to be depended upon the nature of the rights the plaintiff asserted and the practical consequences likely to flow from the order he seeks. 10 I proceed on that basis. Indeed, the present question concerned only the first enquiry, whether the applicants had made out a prima facie case, as the balance of convenience was plainly in their favour. This is because if the present interlocutory application were refused, the application for final relief would have no utility as the Commissioner would be free to take recovery action. I also take into account that the matter is now fixed for final hearing before me on 5 August The evidence 11 On the present interlocutory application, the following affidavits were read without objection. 12 The applicants read and relied on an affidavit sworn by Mr Darryl Kipping on 26 May 2016, Mr Kipping being a lawyer and director of Torrens Legal. 13 The Commissioner read and relied on an affidavit sworn by Mr John Lynn on 8 June Mr Lynn is an Executive Level officer employed in the debt section of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) in Brisbane. Mr Lynn also swore a supplementary affidavit, sworn 15 June 2016, correcting a minor error in his earlier affidavit.

7 - 4 - The Deed 14 As I have indicated, central to the present dispute is the Deed. 15 The taxpayer, the first applicant, was a party to the Deed as were the second and third applicants as guarantors. 16 The Deed related to the taxpayer s income tax liabilities for the 2009, 2010 and 2011 financial years. The essential features of the Deed were that in exchange for the securities given in accordance with the Deed, the Commissioner agreed to forbear from undertaking recovery action upon the terms and conditions set out in the Deed. 17 Taxation Debt was defined in the Deed to mean the amount of $10,948,507.45, comprised of Tax-Related Liability and applicable GIC due and payable by the taxpayer as at 7 August 2015, subject to any adjustment to those amounts by virtue of the determination of the objection process. 18 Securities was defined in the Deed to mean the mortgages detailed in Item 1 of Schedule 1, ranking as a second mortgage, subject to any amendment pursuant to the provisions in the Deed concerning Substitute Security, from time to time. In effect this meant the property described as Lot 9005 on Deposited Plan (Lot 9005). 19 By clause 4.1(f) the taxpayer agreed that where he complied with the terms of the Deed he shall not be subject to recovery action in relation to the unpaid balance of his Taxation Debt until 30 days after the determination of the objection process. 20 By clause 6.1, the Commissioner agreed, subject to clause 11.2, to refrain from commencing any proceedings or employing his statutory garnishee power to recover any part of the Taxation Debt. Clause 11.2 provided that upon the occurrence of an Event of Default the Commissioner may, subject to the Notification requirement in clause 11.3, exercise his rights to recover the balance of the Taxation Debt. The notification requirement in clause 11.3 was to the effect that the Commissioner must not exercise his rights to commence recovery action in respect of the balance of the Taxation Debt until he had notified the Taxpayer and/or the Guarantor of the occurrence of an Event of Default and warned them that the Commissioner may elect to exercise his recovery and/or enforcement rights if the Event of Default is not remedied to the Commissioner s satisfaction within 10 business days.

8 21 Event of Default was defined to mean any of the events described as such in the Deed (including those events described in clause 10). I take the reference to clause 10 to be a mistake for clause Clause 6.6 provided that the Commissioner will be entitled to exercise his recovery powers in respect of the Taxation Debt and enforce his rights pursuant to his Securities, as from the eleventh Business Day after he has given notice (in the manner described in clause 11.3) of any Event of Default listed in clause The relevant parts of clause 11 on which the Commissioner relies are as follows: 11.1 An Event of Default occurs if any one or more of the following occurs and, with the exception of paragraph (i) for which no notice period is required or (h) which addresses notice periods in that paragraph, is not remedied within ten (10) Business Days of the Taxpayer or Obligor (as the case may be) being notified of the event/matter in writing: (a) The Taxpayer fails to comply with any of their obligations under this Deed; 11.2 Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default (without in any way limiting any other provision of this Deed) the Commissioner may, in addition to any other powers conferred by this Deed, and subject to the Notification requirement in clause 11.3, exercise his rights to recover the balance of the Taxation Debt The Commissioner must not exercise his rights to commence recovery action in respect of the balance of the Taxation Debt or appoint a receiver to enforce his security until he has Notified the Taxpayer and/or the Guarantor of the occurrence of an Event of Default and warned them that the Commissioner may elect to exercise his recovery and/or enforcement rights if the Event of Default is not remedied to the Commissioner s satisfaction within ten Business Days. I have amended cross references in clause 11.1 as accepted by counsel in the course of the hearing. Brief chronology 24 On 24 March 2016, the ATO received a Valuation Report by Opteon Property Group which the Commissioner had procured pursuant to clauses 3.6(i) and 3.6(j) of the Deed. That Report indicated that Lot 9005 was valued at $1.9 million. By contrast, the Valuation Report provided by the first applicant pursuant to clause 3.6(b) indicated that the property was valued at $11 million.

9 On 30 March 2016, the Commissioner wrote to the first applicant demanding, in accordance with clause 3.6(k), that within 30 days he provide a mortgage over additional property which had an unencumbered value of at least $4.55 million. 26 A mortgage was provided, by a company called by 119 Nicholson Road Pty Ltd, as was a valuation of the additional properties (Lot 819 on Deposited Plan CT 1647/188 (Lot 819) and Lot 820 on Deposited Plan CT1647/190 (Lot 820)) as at 29 April 2016 of $4.7 million. 27 I note here that, although under clause of the Deed it was stated that time was of the essence in the Deed, on the present interlocutory application the Commissioner took no point about time for compliance with the 30 day period to which I have referred. 28 Clause 3.6(k) deals with the circumstance where a valuation procured by the Commissioner indicated that the valuation of the property was less than the valuation provided by the taxpayer. The difference between the two valuations was $9.1 million. In those circumstances, that clause provided for a written demand from the Commissioner to the taxpayer to provide a mortgage over additional property which had unencumbered equity of at least half the difference between the two valuations. The taxpayer was obliged to do so within 30 days of the written demand. 29 As I have said, the written demand from the Commissioner in this case was dated 30 March 2016 (the March Notice), and required that within 30 days the first applicant provide a mortgage over additional property which has an unencumbered value of at least $4.55 million. 30 On 27 April 2016, Mr Kipping advised the Commissioner by that Lots 819 and 820 were being offered as additional security. The stated that the properties were owned by 119 Nicholson Road Pty Ltd. Mr Kipping said that he was instructed that agreement had been reached with the fellow shareholder/director of that company for those properties to be provided as security. 31 The Commissioner said in correspondence, dated 28 April 2016, that he had serious doubts that those properties were of sufficient value as to provide the required amount of collateral. He said those two properties were already offered as collateral to the first applicant s security deed back in August. They had been rejected on the basis that they had caveats in place which would prevent registration of the Commissioner s mortgages, and that

10 - 7 - one of them was subject to a seizure order. The also referred to the writer s concern that the directors of 119 Nicholson Road Pty Ltd did not see eye to eye and that this might cause some difficulty for the Commissioner The Commissioner also expressed doubt that even if the existing encumbrances were removed there would be sufficient equity in those properties to discharge the obligation to provide the required additional $4.55 million of collateral. The invited the first applicant to offer an alternative property to satisfy the demand made pursuant to clause 3.6 (k). 32 By dated 5 May 2016, attaching a letter bearing that date, the Commissioner gave notice (the 5 May Notice) that he had determined that there had been an Event of Default pursuant to clause 11.1(a) and clause 11.1(d) of the Deed. (The reference to this latter clause was not pressed in submissions on behalf of the Commissioner.) By that letter, the first applicant was notified of the Event of Default and, pursuant to Clause 11.3 of the Deed warned that the Commissioner may elect to exercise his recovery and or enforcement rights if the Event of Default is not remedied to the Commissioner s satisfaction within ten Business Days. The submissions of the parties 33 As I have indicated, the applicants submitted that there has been no Event of Default under the Deed and, in any event, the Commissioner has not complied with the strict notice provisions of the Deed such that it was the Commissioner who breached the terms of the Deed by filing recovery proceedings in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. 34 The applicants also submitted that the taxpayer had complied with clause 3.6(k) because the mortgages proffered over the additional properties had an equity of over $4.55 million as per the valuation by a registered valuer contemplated under the Deed. There was no permission given for the Commissioner to obtain his own valuation. The Deed did not provide for a secondary Compromise Valuation Regime. There was no suggestion that the valuation was not bona fide. Accordingly, the applicants submitted, the Commissioner was bound to accept the additional securities as the compromise that he agreed in the event of a difference between the taxpayer s valuation of the Original Property and the Commissioner s permitted valuation of that property. Thirdly, the applicants submitted, even if the 5 May notice was a notice under clause 11.3, the Commissioner did not have a basis to be reasonably satisfied that the value was less than $4.5 million. The valuation relied on by the Commissioner was outdated, did not address the matters in the valuation provided by the taxpayer and was

11 - 8 - insufficient for the Commissioner to form the view that the alleged default was remedied by the Commissioner s reasonable satisfaction, as required by clause 11.3 and clause The applicants submitted that the contractual regime had not reached a stage which entitled recovery action. The Commissioner, in his March Notice and 5 May Notice impermissibly elided, the applicants submitted, clauses 11.1 and 11.3, which provided for two separate notice periods. The demand under clause 3.6(k) could not also operate as a notice under clause That was sufficient to dispose of the case, the applicant submitted. Further, they submitted, the 5 May Notice was ineffective as it incorrectly proceeded on the basis that a notice under clause 11.1 had been given. 36 The Commissioner in his written outline of submissions contended that the interlocutory application should be refused because the applicants had not made out the requisite prima facie case for relief. First, it was submitted that the mortgage over Lots 819 and 820, purported to have been executed by 119 Nicholson Road Pty Ltd in accordance with the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 127, was not so executed, and it was not a mortgage by that company. Secondly, it was submitted that Lots 819 and 820 were trust property in the hands of 119 Nicholson Road Pty Ltd and the applicants had not demonstrated that the company had power to grant the mortgage over that property. The Commissioner did not press his written submission that the mortgage purported to secure the sum of $4.5 million which was $50,000 short of what had to be provided under the Deed. 37 The Commissioner also submitted that the applicants submission that the Deed required two separate notices, one under clause 11.1, and a second notice under clause 11.3, should be rejected on the basis that the reference to an Event of Default in clause 11.3 was a reference to one of the events specified in clause 11.1(a)-(j). It would make no sense to require two successive failures of notice to remedy a remediable breach. 38 The Commissioner also submitted that the applicants contention that he was bound to accept the proffered additional securities because the applicants had tendered a valuation by a registered valuer of the subject land which exceeded $4.55 million should be rejected. The Commissioner submitted that what clause 3.6(k) required was actual value, not a mere and unchallengeable certification of value. 39 The Commissioner also submitted that the applicants contention that he does not have a basis to be reasonably satisfied that the value [of Lots 819 and 820] is less than $4.5m

12 - 9 - appeared to be based on clause 6.2 of the Deed combined with the reference in clause 11.3 to the Commissioner s satisfaction. The Commissioner submitted that this issue fell away without a valid and competent mortgage for the requisite amount. Consideration 40 As to the applicants second submission, that there had not been an actionable Event of Default as yet, I do not act on the Commissioner s submission that the Court should finally determine the relevant terms of clause 11 of the Deed. I decline to do so because I have heard no more than short argument on an interlocutory hearing. 41 In my opinion, it is arguable that where a taxpayer fails to comply with any of his obligations under the Deed, an Event of Default occurs where the default is not remedied within 10 days of being notified that he has so failed to comply. The Event of Default is the failure to remedy within that period after being so notified and arguably does not occur before that time, that interpretation getting some support from clause 6.6. Clause 11.2 is subject to the Notification requirement in clause 11.3, but that clause arguably may then mean, the Event of Default not having occurred before the failure to remedy within 10 business days, that it is not until then that the Commissioner may notify the taxpayer of the occurrence of the Event of Default, and give the warning referred to in clause It was common ground that no second notice had been given, the Commissioner s position being, as I have said, that a single notice, including the clause 11.3 warning, sufficed and had been given in this case by the 5 May Notice. 43 In my opinion, the applicants have shown a sufficient likelihood of success on their second submission, see [40]-[42] above, to justify in the circumstances the preservation of the status quo pending the trial, bearing in mind the practical consequences likely to flow from the order the applicants seek. 44 It is not therefore necessary to reach a concluded view on this interlocutory application on the applicants first submission. As to that submission, that the applicants had complied with the Deed, I will however indicate my tentative view. In my opinion, it turns in the first place on the words provide a mortgage over additional property which has unencumbered equity of, in this case, $4.55 million. In the correspondence between the parties the issue was whether Lots 819 and 820 answered that description. One issue was the question of value. In my opinion, it is arguable that, as no point as to time was taken on the present interlocutory

13 application, the provision of a valuer s report stating that the combined value of those properties was $4.7 million as at 29 April 2016 meant that the applicants had, thus far, complied with the Deed. It is not necessary, and I do not, for present purposes to go further and consider whether the Commissioner is bound to accept such a valuation, as contended by the applicants on this application, or whether the issue under clause 3.6(k) is one of objective fact, as contended by the Commissioner on this application. 45 As to the first of the additional points made by the Commissioner and summarised at [36] above, in my opinion, it is not one which I should determine on this interlocutory application and where it is not necessary to do so. The point was not raised in correspondence between the parties surrounding the claimed failure to comply with clause 3.6(k) and was raised for the first time by submissions filed at 5 pm on the day preceding the hearing. If the point had been raised earlier, this issue could, perhaps, have been remedied. 46 As to the second of the additional points made by the Commissioner and summarised at [36] above, again, in my opinion, it is not one which I should determine on this interlocutory application and where it is not necessary to do so. The point was not raised in correspondence between the parties surrounding the claimed failure to comply with clause 3.6(k) and was raised for the first time by submissions filed at 5 pm on the day preceding the interlocutory hearing. As submitted by the applicants, the Commissioner refused to take the mortgage for reasons that did not include this argument. Conclusion and orders 47 On the usual undertaking as to damages given by the applicants to the Court, there will be an order, until further order, restraining the respondent from taking recovery action as referred to in clauses 6.1, 6.5 and 6.6 of the Deed of Agreement between the parties dated 23 September The respondent is to pay the applicants costs of this interlocutory application, as agreed or taxed. I certify that the preceding fortyeight (48) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Robertson.

14 Associate: Dated: 29 June 2016

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Creighton v Australian Executor Trustees Limited [2015] FCA 1137 Citation: Creighton v Australian Executor Trustees Limited [2015] FCA 1137 Parties: INNES CREIGHTON v AUSTRALIAN

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Highvic Pty Ltd & Ors v Quarterback Group Pty Ltd & Anor [2012] QSC 8 HIGHVIC PTY LTD (Applicant/First Plaintiff) AND BRIAN FRANCIS GEANEY (Second Plaintiff)

More information

Eopply New Energy Technology Co Ltd v EP Solar Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 356 (19 April 2013)

Eopply New Energy Technology Co Ltd v EP Solar Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 356 (19 April 2013) http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/fca/2013/356.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title%28eopply%2 0%29 Eopply New Energy Technology Co Ltd v EP Solar Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 356 (19 April 2013)

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Lucas Drilling Pty Limited v Armour Energy Limited [2013] QCA 111 PARTIES: LUCAS DRILLING PTY LIMITED ACN 093 489 671 (appellant) v ARMOUR ENERGY LIMITED ACN 141 198

More information

NAGV of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1456 (27 November 2002)

NAGV of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1456 (27 November 2002) NAGV of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1456 (27 November 2002) FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NAGV of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous

More information

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Global Green Plan Ltd [2010] FCA 1057 Citation: Parties: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Global Green Plan Ltd

More information

Part 36 Extraordinary Remedies

Part 36 Extraordinary Remedies Alberta Rules of Court 390/68 R427-430 Part 36 Extraordinary Remedies Replevin Recovery of personal property 427 In any action brought for the recovery of any personal property and claiming that the property

More information

SUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER 20

SUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER 20 Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 195 ALR 24 The text on pages 893-94 sets out s 474 of the Migration Act, as amended in 2001 in the wake of the Tampa controversy (see Chapter 12); and also refers

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: 4490 of 2010 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: John Holland Pty Ltd v Schneider Electric Buildings Australia Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 159 JOHN HOLLAND

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Maclag (No 11) P/L & Anor v Chantay Too P/L (No 2) [2009] QSC 299 PARTIES: MACLAG (NO 11) PTY LTD ACN 010 611 631 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BURNS FAMILY TRUST (first plaintiff)

More information

APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL CREDIT ACCOUNT TRADING TERMS AND CONDITIONS

APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL CREDIT ACCOUNT TRADING TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL CREDIT ACCOUNT TRADING TERMS AND CONDITIONS These Trading Terms and Conditions are to be read and understood prior to the execution of the Application for Commercial Credit Account.

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Martinek Holdings Pty Ltd v Reed Construction (Qld) Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 329 PARTIES: MARTINEK HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 106 533 242 (applicant/appellant) v REED CONSTRUCTION

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: DPP (Cth) v Corby [2007] QCA 58 PARTIES: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (COMMONWEALTH) (applicant) v SCHAPELLE CORBY (respondent) FILE NO/S: Appeal No 1365 of 2007

More information

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Blue Chip Development Corporation (Cairns) Pty Ltd v van Dieman [2009] FCA 117 PRACTICE & PROCEDURE legislative scheme for progress payments under construction contracts challenge

More information

Review of Administrative Decisions on the Merits

Review of Administrative Decisions on the Merits Review of Administrative Decisions on the Merits By Neil Williams SC 28 October 2008 1. For the practitioner, administrative law matters usually start with a disaffected client clutching the terms of a

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Three P/L v Body Corporate for Savoir Faire Community Titles Scheme 3841 [2008] QCA 167 PARTIES: THREE PTY LTD ACN 069 497 516 (respondent/plaintiff/respondent) v

More information

Immigration Law Conference February 2017 Panel discussion Judicial Review: Emerging Trends & Themes

Immigration Law Conference February 2017 Panel discussion Judicial Review: Emerging Trends & Themes Immigration Law Conference February 2017 Panel discussion Brenda Tronson Barrister Level 22 Chambers btronson@level22.com.au 02 9151 2212 Unreasonableness In December, Bromberg J delivered judgment in

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Taylor v Company Solutions (Aust) Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 309 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: 12009 of 2010 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: DAVID JAMES TAYLOR, by his Litigation Guardian BELINDA

More information

FIJI ISLANDS HIGH COURT ACT (CHAPTER 13) HIGH COURT (AMENDMENT) RULES 1998

FIJI ISLANDS HIGH COURT ACT (CHAPTER 13) HIGH COURT (AMENDMENT) RULES 1998 FIJI ISLANDS HIGH COURT ACT (CHAPTER 13) HIGH COURT (AMENDMENT) RULES 1998 IN exercise of the powers conferred upon me by Section 25 of the High Court Act, I hereby make the following Rules: Citation 1.

More information

For personal use only

For personal use only Driver Australia Master Trust VWFS Australia Security Deed Dated 23 June 2016 Volkswagen Financial Services Australia Pty Limited (ABN 20 097 071 460 ( VWFS Australia Perpetual Corporate Trust Limited

More information

State Reporting Bureau

State Reporting Bureau [2.003] 0 SC 056 State Reporting Bureau Queensland Government Department of Justice and Attorney-General Transcript of Proceedings Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must

More information

Winding up by court 568. Application of Chapter 569. Circumstances in which company may be wound up by the court

Winding up by court 568. Application of Chapter 569. Circumstances in which company may be wound up by the court PART 11 WINDING UP CHAPTER 1 Preliminary and interpretation 559. Interpretation (Part 11) 560. Restriction of this Part 561. Modes of winding up general statement as to position under Act 562. Types of

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Gladstone & District Leagues Club Ltd v Hutson & Ors [2007] QSC 010 GLADSTONE & DISTRICT LEAGUES CLUB LIMITED ACN 010 187 961 (applicant) v ROBERT HUTSON

More information

Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000

Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000 Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000 Commencement: 1st May 2000 In exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 254 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and all powers

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Forsyth & Ors v Big Gold Corporation Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2017] QSC 314 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: No 9817 of 2016 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ALEXANDER CAMERON FORSYTH (first plaintiff)

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Bourne v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QSC 231 KATRINA MARGARET BOURNE (applicant) v QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

More information

SUMMARY OF CONTENTS SC-1.

SUMMARY OF CONTENTS SC-1. SUMMARY OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 Chapter 1. Preliminary Matters............................ 1-1 Chapter 2. Parties...................................... 2-1 Chapter 3. Service......................................

More information

The Debt Adjustment Act

The Debt Adjustment Act DEBT ADJUSTMENT c. 87 1 The Debt Adjustment Act being Chapter 87 of The Revised Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1940 (effective February 1, 1941). NOTE: This consolidation is not official. Amendments have been

More information

ATHANASIOS KORONIADIS Appellant. BANK OF NEW ZEALAND Respondent. Cooper, Venning and Williams JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ATHANASIOS KORONIADIS Appellant. BANK OF NEW ZEALAND Respondent. Cooper, Venning and Williams JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA522/2013 [2015] NZCA 337 BETWEEN AND ATHANASIOS KORONIADIS Appellant BANK OF NEW ZEALAND Respondent Hearing: 18 June 2015 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Cooper, Venning

More information

EXECUTOR TRUSTEE AND AGENCY COMPANY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA, LIMITED, ACT.

EXECUTOR TRUSTEE AND AGENCY COMPANY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA, LIMITED, ACT. EXECUTOR TRUSTEE AND AGENCY COMPANY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA, LIMITED, ACT. An Act to confer powers upon Executor Trustee and Agency Company of South Australia, Limited. [Assented to, 29th October, 1925.J WHEREAS

More information

CAVEATS AGAINST DEALINGS IN LAND WHEN TO LODGE AND HOW TO REMOVE PRESENTED ON 14 FEBRUARY 2014 NICHOLAS JONES, BARRISTER

CAVEATS AGAINST DEALINGS IN LAND WHEN TO LODGE AND HOW TO REMOVE PRESENTED ON 14 FEBRUARY 2014 NICHOLAS JONES, BARRISTER CAVEATS AGAINST DEALINGS IN LAND WHEN TO LODGE AND HOW TO REMOVE PRESENTED ON 14 FEBRUARY 2014 BY NICHOLAS JONES, BARRISTER POWER TO LODGE A CAVEAT 1. Section 89(1) of the Transfer of Land Act 1958 provides

More information

Chapter 4 Creditors Voluntary Winding Up Application of Chapter. MKD/096/AC#

Chapter 4 Creditors Voluntary Winding Up Application of Chapter. MKD/096/AC# [PART 11 WINDING UP Chapter 1 Preliminary and Interpretation 549. Interpretation (Part 11). 550. Restriction of this Part. 551. Modes of winding up - general statement as to position under Act. 552. Types

More information

DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS ACT, 1984, No. 147

DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS ACT, 1984, No. 147 DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS ACT, 1984, No. 147 NEW SOUTH WALES. TABLE OF PROVISIONS. PART I. PRELIMINARY. 1. Short title. 2. Commencement. 3. Interpretation. 4. Construction of references to Local Courts, etc.

More information

Merger Implementation Deed

Merger Implementation Deed Execution Version Merger Implementation Deed Vicwest Community Telco Ltd ACN 140 604 039 Bendigo Telco Ltd ACN 089 782 203 Table of Contents 1. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION... 3 1.1 Definitions... 3

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: David & Gai Spankie & Northern Investment Holdings Pty Limited v James Trowse Constructions Pty Limited & Ors [2010] QSC 29 DAVID & GAI SPANKIE & NORTHERN

More information

Bankruptcy, financial agreements and the rights of creditors

Bankruptcy, financial agreements and the rights of creditors BA NKRUP T C Y A ND I NS O L V ENC Y Bankruptcy, financial agreements and the rights of creditors J A CK Y CA MPB EL L, A PRI L 2 0 1 6 The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in Grainger & Bloomfield

More information

Deed of Company Arrangement

Deed of Company Arrangement Deed of Company Arrangement Matthew James Donnelly Deed Administrator David Mark Hodgson Deed Administrator Riverline Enterprises Pty Ltd ACN 112 906 144 (Administrators Appointed) trading as Matera Construction

More information

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Zentai v Republic of Hungary [2009] FCAFC 139 EXTRADITION function of magistrate in conducting hearing under s 19 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) function of primary judge

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: O Keefe & Ors v Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service [2016] QCA 205 CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE O KEEFE (first appellant) NATHAN IRWIN (second appellant)

More information

557. Hearing of proceedings otherwise than in public Power of court to order the return of assets which have been improperly transferred.

557. Hearing of proceedings otherwise than in public Power of court to order the return of assets which have been improperly transferred. 557. Hearing of proceedings otherwise than in public. 558. Power of court to order the return of assets which have been improperly transferred. 559. Reporting to Director of Corporate Enforcement of misconduct

More information

(company number 2065) - and - (company number SC )

(company number 2065) - and - (company number SC ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE NO: OF 2011 CHANCERY DIVISION COMPANIES COURT LLOYDS TSB BANK PLC (company number 2065) - and - BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC (company number SC 327000) SCHEME for the transfer of part

More information

New South Wales Supreme Court

New South Wales Supreme Court State Crest New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : HEARING DATE(S) : JUDGMENT DATE : JURISDICTION: CORVETINA TECHNOLOGY LTD v CLOUGH ENGINEERING LTD [2004] NSWSC 700 revised - 17/08/2004 29/07/2004 (judgment

More information

Another Strahan case loss of legal professional privilege

Another Strahan case loss of legal professional privilege EVIDENCE Another Strahan case loss of legal professional privilege JACKY CAMPBELL,JANUARY 2014 CCH LAW CHAT Jacky Campbell Forte Family Lawyers CCH Law Chat January 2014 Another Strahan case - Loss of

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Doolan and Anor v Rubikcon (Qld) Pty Ltd and Ors [07] QSC 68 SANDRA DOOLAN AND STEPHEN DOOLAN (applicants) v RUBIKCON (QLD) PTY LTD ACN 099 635 275 (first

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: ACN 060 559 971 Pty Ltd v O Brien & Anor [2007] QSC 91 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: BS51 of 2007 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ACN 060 559 971 PTY LTD (ACN 060 559 971) (formerly ABEL

More information

Judicial Review. The issue is whether the decision was made under Commonwealth or State law and which court has jurisdiction.

Judicial Review. The issue is whether the decision was made under Commonwealth or State law and which court has jurisdiction. Judicial Review Jurisdiction The issue is whether the decision was made under Commonwealth or State law and which court has jurisdiction. Federal decisions must go to the Federal courts and State (and

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Nadao Stott v Lyons and Stott (as executors) [2007] QSC 087 PARTIES: NADAO STOTT (under Part IV, sections 40-44, Succession Act 1981) (applicant) AND FILE NO/S: BS

More information

Legal Profession Amendment Regulation 2007

Legal Profession Amendment Regulation 2007 New South Wales Legal Profession Amendment Regulation 2007 under the Legal Profession Act 2004 Her Excellency the Governor, with the advice of the Executive Council, has made the following Regulation under

More information

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Hur v Samsun Logix Corporation [2009] FCA 372 CORPORATIONS application under Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) Korean insolvency proceeding recognised as a foreign proceeding

More information

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. NSD 1519 of 2004

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. NSD 1519 of 2004 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. NSD 1519 of 2004 HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL INC KYODO SENPAKU KAISHA LTD Applicant Respondent APPLICANT S SUBMISSIONS ON DIRECTIONS

More information

SUNANDA BALKRISHNA KADAM and others named in the schedule First Applicant

SUNANDA BALKRISHNA KADAM and others named in the schedule First Applicant Federal Court of Australia District Registry: Queensland Division: General No: QUD528/2016 SUNANDA BALKRISHNA KADAM and others named in the schedule First Applicant MIIRESORTS GROUP 1 PTY LTD ACN 140 177

More information

ARRIUM FINANCE PTY LIMITED (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT) ACN (AND EACH OF THE COMPANIES LISTED IN SCHEDULE ONE)

ARRIUM FINANCE PTY LIMITED (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT) ACN (AND EACH OF THE COMPANIES LISTED IN SCHEDULE ONE) Federal Court of Australia District Registry: Victoria Division: Corporations List No. VID 608 of 2017 IN THE MATTER OF ARRIUM FINANCE PTY LIMITED (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT) ACN 093 954 940

More information

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Case Name: Capilano Honey Ltd v Dowling (No 1) Medium Neutral Citation: [2018] NSWCA 128 Hearing Date(s): 15 June 2018 Date of Orders: 15 June 2018 Date of

More information

UPDATE 148 OCTOBER 2016 PROPERTY LAW AND PRACTICE QUEENSLAND. W Duncan & R Vann. Editors: W Duncan & A Wallace

UPDATE 148 OCTOBER 2016 PROPERTY LAW AND PRACTICE QUEENSLAND. W Duncan & R Vann. Editors: W Duncan & A Wallace UPDATE 148 OCTOBER 2016 PROPERTY LAW AND PRACTICE QUEENSLAND W Duncan & R Vann Editors: W Duncan & A Wallace Material Code 41907055 Print Post Approved PP255003/00335 Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: DT & MF Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 611 700 746 & others v Ascendia Accountants (Noosa) Pty Ltd ACN 123 735 393 & others [2017] QSC 330 PARTIES: DT & MF HOLDINGS PTY LTD

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Jones v Aussie Networks Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 126 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: 12056/13 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: RHYS EDWARD JONES (applicant) v AUSSIE NETWORKS PTY LTD ABN 44 124

More information

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT ACT 27 OF ] (English text signed by the President)

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT ACT 27 OF ] (English text signed by the President) IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT ACT 27 OF 2002 [ASSENTED TO 12 JULY 2002] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 16 AUGUST 2002] ACT (English text signed by the President) Regulations

More information

Kosovo. Regulation No. 2001/5

Kosovo. Regulation No. 2001/5 Kosovo Regulation No. 2001/5 on Pledges (adopted on 7 February 2001) Important Disclaimer The text should be used for information purposes only and appropriate legal advice should be sought as and when

More information

Scheme Implementation Deed

Scheme Implementation Deed ` Scheme Implementation Deed Boart Longyear Limited ACN 123 052 728 Boart Longyear Incorporated Number: BC1175337 In relation to the re-domiciliation of Boart Longyear Limited 249351531.11 CONTENTS CLAUSE

More information

FAILURE TO GIVE PROPER, GENUINE AND REALISTIC CONSIDERATION TO THE MERITS OF A CASE: A CRITIQUE OF CARRASCALAO

FAILURE TO GIVE PROPER, GENUINE AND REALISTIC CONSIDERATION TO THE MERITS OF A CASE: A CRITIQUE OF CARRASCALAO 2018 A Critique of Carrascalao 1 FAILURE TO GIVE PROPER, GENUINE AND REALISTIC CONSIDERATION TO THE MERITS OF A CASE: A CRITIQUE OF CARRASCALAO JASON DONNELLY In Carrascalao v Minister for Immigration

More information

GST & forfeited deposits High Court decision

GST & forfeited deposits High Court decision batallion legal keepin it simple GST & forfeited deposits High Court decision By Luis Batalha, principal and Wai Kien Ng, consultant 2 June 2008 In the recent decision of FC of T v Reliance Carpet Co Pty

More information

Singapore: Mutual Assistance In Criminal Matters Act

Singapore: Mutual Assistance In Criminal Matters Act The Asian Development Bank and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development do not guarantee the accuracy of this document and accept no responsibility whatsoever for any consequences of

More information

Insolvency Implications of ASIC Cross- Guarantee Class Orders

Insolvency Implications of ASIC Cross- Guarantee Class Orders Insolvency Implications of ASIC Cross- Guarantee Class Orders Date : 22 January 2013 Author/s : Philip Stern What Is It? By s.292(1) Corporations Act 2001 all public companies and large proprietary companies

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Ambassador at Redcliffe P/L & Anor v Emerald Constructions Aust P/L & Ors [2006] QSC 247 AMBASSADOR AT REDCLIFFE

More information

THE FARMERS' ASSISTANCE (DEBTS ADJUSTMENT) ACT

THE FARMERS' ASSISTANCE (DEBTS ADJUSTMENT) ACT 683 THE FARMERS' ASSISTANCE (DEBTS ADJUSTMENT) ACT of 1967 No. 17 An Act to Enable Certain Moneys made available by the Commonwealth to be Applied to or for the Benefit of Farmers [Assented to 7 April

More information

PARADISE TIMBERS PTY LTD APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL CREDIT

PARADISE TIMBERS PTY LTD APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL CREDIT PARADISE TIMBERS PTY LTD ABN 41 010 596 353 P O Box 3230 HELENSVALE TOWN CENTRE QLD 4212 128 Millaroo Drive GAVEN QLD 4211 Accounts: accounts@paradise-timbers.com.au Sales: sales@paradise-timbers.com.au

More information

WHEREAS having regard to the population and great extent of

WHEREAS having regard to the population and great extent of No. XXV. An Act to provide for the better Administration of Justice in the District of Moreton Bay. [11th March, 1857.] WHEREAS having regard to the population and great extent of the District of Moreton

More information

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Health Services Union v Jackson (No 2) [2015] FCA 670 Citation: Health Services Union v Jackson (No 2) [2015] FCA 670 Parties: v KATHERINE JACKSON; KATHERINE JACKSON v HEALTH

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Queensland Police Credit Union Ltd [2013] QSC 273 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: BS 3893 of 2013 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: QUEENSLAND POLICE CREDIT UNION LIMITED

More information

GENERAL SECURITY AGREEMENT 1

GENERAL SECURITY AGREEMENT 1 GENERAL SECURITY AGREEMENT 1 1. Grant of Security Interest. 999999 B.C. Ltd. ( Debtor ), having its chief executive office at 999 Main Street, Vancouver B.C., V1V 1V1 as continuing security for the repayment

More information

BERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965

BERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965 QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965 [made under section 9 of the Court of Appeal Act 1964 and brought into operation on 2 August 1965] TABLE OF CONTENTS

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV 2008-485-562 BETWEEN AND JANICE MARY MENERE, RUPERT OLIVER SMITH AND KELLEE ANN MENERE Plaintiff JACKSON MEWS MANAGEMENT LIMITED Defendant Hearing:

More information

Leam Trading Pty Ltd t/as Fabre Australia PO Box 6212, Lakemba NSW 2195 Phone: Fax:

Leam Trading Pty Ltd t/as Fabre Australia PO Box 6212, Lakemba NSW 2195 Phone: Fax: Leam Trading Pty Ltd t/as Fabre Australia PO Box 6212, Lakemba NSW 2195 Phone: 02 9758 1966 Fax: 02 9758 1155 Applicant s Details (All Applicants to Complete) Please specify the nature of this application

More information

State Reporting Bureau

State Reporting Bureau State Reporting Bureau 1^003] QSC. M-G Queensl Government Department of Justice Attorney-General Transcript of Proceedings Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be

More information

Index. Volume 21 (2005) 21 BCL

Index. Volume 21 (2005) 21 BCL Index Abandoned claims judgment on, principally concerned with costs, 12-13, 33-44 whether cost reduction appropriate because of, 125 Access to the premises AS 4917-2003, 9-10 Acts Interpretation Act 1954

More information

Memorandum Setting Forth Provisions Intended for Inclusion in Instruments

Memorandum Setting Forth Provisions Intended for Inclusion in Instruments Memorandum Setting Forth Provisions Intended for Inclusion in Instruments MEMORANDUM Land Transfer Act 1952 Class of instrument in which provisions intended to be included: Mortgage - All obligations Person

More information

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Australian Institute of Professional Education Pty Limited v Australian Skills Quality Authority [2016] FCA 814 File number: NSD 733 of 2016 Judge: LOGAN J Date of judgment:

More information

State Reporting Bureau

State Reporting Bureau State Reporting Bureau jsbo?t] (3SC 34 Queensland Government Department of justice and Attorney-General Transcript of Proceedings Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must

More information

Page 1 CORPORATIONS ACT A PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED BY GUARANTEE THE CONSTITUTION OF RURAL DOCTORS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA LIMITED ACN

Page 1 CORPORATIONS ACT A PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED BY GUARANTEE THE CONSTITUTION OF RURAL DOCTORS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA LIMITED ACN Page 1 CORPORATIONS ACT A PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED BY GUARANTEE THE CONSTITUTION OF RURAL DOCTORS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA LIMITED ACN 062 176 863 1.1.22. CONTENTS CONTENTS 1 1. DEFINITIONS 2 2. INTERPRETATION

More information

ACQUISITION OF LAND ACT

ACQUISITION OF LAND ACT 539 ACQUISITION OF LAND ACT 1967-1969 Acquisition of Land Act of 1967, No. 48 Amended by Acquisition of Land Act Amendment Act 1969, No. 33 An Act to Consolidate and Amend the Law Relating to the Acquisition

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: S5736 of 2002 DIVISION: PROCEEDINGS: ORIGINATING COURT: Atlantic 3-Financial (Aust) Pty Ltd v. Deskhurst Pty Ltd & Anor [2004] QSC 130 ATLANTIC 3-FINANCIAL

More information

Bid implementation agreement

Bid implementation agreement Bid implementation agreement Jupiter Civil Pty Ltd as trustee for The Jupiter Unit Trust ABN 47 305 680 941 Calibre Group Limited ACN 100 255 623 Sundaraj & Ker ABN 20 622 278 700 Office: Level 36, Australia

More information

Real Property and Conveyancing Legislation Amendment Act 2009 No 17

Real Property and Conveyancing Legislation Amendment Act 2009 No 17 New South Wales Real Property and Conveyancing Legislation Amendment Act 2009 No 17 Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 Schedule 1 Amendment of Real Property Act 1900 No 25 3 Schedule 2 Amendment

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: BS 5992 of 2004 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Body Corporate for Sun City Resort CTS 24674 v Sunland Constructions Pty Ltd & Ors [2010]

More information

COURT: IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION. Neaves J.(1) HRNG CANBERRA #DATE 22:3:1991

COURT: IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION. Neaves J.(1) HRNG CANBERRA #DATE 22:3:1991 Re: ALEXANDER And: HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION No. ACT G55 of 1990 FED No. 112 Administrative Law (1991) EOC 92-354/100 ALR 557 COURT: IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

More information

Chapter 9:17 SERIOUS OFFENCES (CONFISCATION OF PROFITS) ACT Acts 12/1990, 22/1992 (s. 20), 12/1997 (s. 6), 9/1999, 22/2001. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

Chapter 9:17 SERIOUS OFFENCES (CONFISCATION OF PROFITS) ACT Acts 12/1990, 22/1992 (s. 20), 12/1997 (s. 6), 9/1999, 22/2001. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Chapter 9:17 SERIOUS OFFENCES (CONFISCATION OF PROFITS) ACT Acts 12/1990, 22/1992 (s. 20), 12/1997 (s. 6), 9/1999, 22/2001. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY Section 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation.

More information

Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1999

Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1999 Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1999 (Enacted in 1999) PART I Preliminary 1. Short title 1. This Act may be cited as the Corruption, Drug Trafficking

More information

Winding up. Tribunal. Voluntary (Now governed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code)

Winding up. Tribunal. Voluntary (Now governed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code) Winding up Tribunal (the provision relating to the inability to pay debts now covered by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code) Voluntary (Now governed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code) JURISDICTION:

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Schepis & Anor v Esanda Finance Corp Ltd & Anor [2007] QCA 263 PARTIES: ANTHONY SCHEPIS (first plaintiff/first appellant) MICHELE SCHEPIS (second plaintiff/second

More information

Financiers' Certifier Direct Deed

Financiers' Certifier Direct Deed Document for Release Execution Version Stage One - East West Link The Minister for Roads on behalf of the Crown in right of the State of Victoria State Aquenta Consulting Pty Ltd Financiers' Certifier

More information

Contract of Sale [Lot * on RP******] Page 1

Contract of Sale [Lot * on RP******] Page 1 [Lot * on RP******] Page 1 PART 1 REFERENCE PARTICULARS Item 1 Formation of Agreement Date: 2015 Item 2 Seller Identity: Address for Notices: Name: Delivery: Larmaq Regional Council Post: Facsimile: Item

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D BELIZE TELEMEDIA LIMITED

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D BELIZE TELEMEDIA LIMITED CLAIM NO. 145 of 2011 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2011 BETWEEN BELIZE TELEMEDIA LIMITED Claimant AND 1. KEITH ARNOLD First Defendant 2. PHILIP ZUNIGA Second Defendant 3. SHIRE HOLDINGS LIMITED

More information

IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE. Allen Dodd as trustee for the Dodd Superannuation Fund v Shine Corporate Ltd

IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE. Allen Dodd as trustee for the Dodd Superannuation Fund v Shine Corporate Ltd IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE Allen Dodd as trustee for the Dodd Superannuation Fund v Shine Corporate Ltd Supreme Court of Queensland Proceeding No. 10009/2017 THE SHINE CORPORATE LTD CLASS ACTION Please read

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: LQ Management Pty Ltd & Ors v Laguna Quays Resort Principal Body Corporate & Anor [2014] QCA 122 LQ MANAGEMENT PTY LTD ACN 074 733 976 (first appellant) LAGUNA

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Westfield Ltd v Stockland (Constructors) P/L & Ors [2002] QCA 137 PARTIES: WESTFIELD LTD ACN 000 317 279 (applicant/applicant) v STOCKLAND (CONSTRUCTORS) PTY LIMITED

More information

Money Max Int Pty Ltd (ACN ) as Trustee for the Goldie Superannuation Fund v QBE Insurance Group Limited (ACN )

Money Max Int Pty Ltd (ACN ) as Trustee for the Goldie Superannuation Fund v QBE Insurance Group Limited (ACN ) Money Max Int Pty Ltd (ACN 152 073 580) as Trustee for the Goldie Superannuation Fund v QBE Insurance Group Limited (ACN 008 485 014) Federal Court of Australia VID513/2015 SETTLEMENT DISTRIBUTION SCHEME

More information

DIFC COURT LAW. DIFC LAW No.10 of 2004

DIFC COURT LAW. DIFC LAW No.10 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DIFC COURT LAW DIFC LAW No.10 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More information

MEMORANDUM OF DEPOSIT

MEMORANDUM OF DEPOSIT MEMORANDUM OF DEPOSIT THIS MEMORANDUM OF DEPOSIT ( Memorandum ) is made on BETWEEN: (1) KGI SECURITIES (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD., a company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore and having its registered

More information

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Yu v STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd (South Korea), in the matter of STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd (receivers appointed in South Korea) [2013] FCA 680 Citation: Parties: Yu v STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd

More information

J.Q.A.T. PTY LIMITED STORM CONNOLLY J.:

J.Q.A.T. PTY LIMITED STORM CONNOLLY J.: 162 1987 J.Q.A.T. PTY LIMITED v. STORM (O.S. 749/1985) Full Court (Connolly J., Williams J., Ambrose J.) 19, 23 June; 4 July 1986 Trade Residual Matters Restraint of trade by agreement Validity Restrictive

More information