Case Analysis : Korda V Australian Executor Trustees ( Sa ) Ltd

National Trust Company has several facilities among them the 255,000 hectares of land, castle, mills, forest, pubs and goldmines. The above facilities enable the organization to diversify its services hence meeting the customer’s needs and expanding its profit margin (PAHL & RICHTER 2007).

The case was brought forward to the NSW Supreme Court in 2001 whereby Judge Hulme ordered both Respondents as negligent. This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court of Appeal whereby the judgement was granted in favour of the Respondents. This case affirms the previous decision.

In the matter of Sydney Project Group Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) and S.E.T. Services Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2017] NSWSC 881 (30 June 2017) (‘SPG and SET’) concerns the events involving plaintiffs Michael Hogan (H) and Christian Sprowles (S). Salim Mehajer (M) is the sole shareholder of both Sydney Project Group Pty Ltd (SPG) and S.E.T. Services Pty Ltd (SET). M appointed Kenneth Lee (L)

The Plaintiff’s estate was sequestrated in Federal Magistrates Court on May 12 2009, for failure to pay Council court costs [10]. An application by the Plaintiff for an extension in time to appeal this sequestration was

SPRIVORPCO'S woodlot management group had entered into commitments with various timber growers in anticipation of the sales expected. Specifically, they planned to purchase hardwood timber in bulk according to the following schedule:

One of the claims in this proceeding is the BEP Blue Gum Project which was formerly owned by Euan Pescott, brother to Roger Pescott. In 1999, Euan Pescott and BEP Management Pty Ltd entered into an agreement that requires BEP to establish and manage a eucalyptus plantation on the land provided by Euan Pescott. As a result, Euan Pescott had made a total payment of $ 1,076,253.46 to BEP throughout the years. In 2007, the directors of Environinvest decided to purchase the project by creating a document which is alleged to bear the false date of 1st July 1999. It acts as a false documentation of purchase, and with that Euan Pescott transferred the plantation to S.T.Y.A with the total amount

Case Comment: John Michael Malins v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2017] EWHC 835 (Admin) 2017 WL 01339062

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) is a state tribunal for the Victorians that help and guide to resolve disputes on different aspects including Building and Property, Civil Disputes, Equal Opportunity, Guardians-Administrators, Joint Property and Water, Legal Practice, Owners Corporations, Retail Tenancies, State Taxation, Business Regulation, Domestic Building, FOI-TAC and other Claims, Health- Privacy / Disability Act, Land Valuation, Mental Health, Planning and Environment and Residential Tenancies.

In this case, Success Assets Pty Ltd (Success) borrowed money from Statewest Credit Society Ltd (Statewest) to purchase land, and the land was mortgaged as security. The plaintiff entered into a guarantee in favour of Statewest which secured the loan and all future loans from Statewest to Success. Success used money borrowed from Home Building Society Ltd (Home) to pay the loan from Statewest. Statewest’s rights under the guarantee (which includes those relating to future loans) and Home’s rights under the were transferred to the defendant, Bank of Queensland (BOQ).

By an agreement in writing, prepared without professional assistance, and headed “Agreement between C. and the O. Company”, C. granted to the company, in consideration of the sum of £5, the sole right for a specified period to quarry and remove stone from land owned by him and the company agreed to pay royalties at rates specified in the agreement. The agreement also contained provision for its extension and an authority by C. to the company to pay all moneys connected with the agreement to his wife and himself as joint tenants. The agreement was signed by C., by a person on behalf of the company and by the wife.

The New South Wales Court of Appeal permitted the organisation 's appeal and reasoned that the spouse had gone about as the wife 's operators in the property 's exchange. The Court in this way held that both the

Since the early 1990s, Australian judicial system has experienced a great flux revolving around the notion of good faith in the performance the enforcement of contracts. The leading case Renard Construction (ME) Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works (Renard) along with Preistly JA’s judgment commenced the controversial introduction of universal obligation of good faith in all contracts. Such introduction was also confronted by the opposing force of the more conservative judgments, such as those of Meagher JA in Renard and Gummow J in Service Station Association v Berg Bennett & Associates Pty Ltd . In order to correctly assess the extent to which the High Court of Australia should recognize that in all contracts, parties

IN CONSIDERATION OF THE COVENANTS and agreements contained in this Sales Agreement the parties to this Agreement agree as follows:

The recent decision of the High Court in Bank of Ireland v Eteams International Limited [2017] IEHC 393 has clarified how the question of whether a transaction involves the sale of an asset, or the creation of security over that asset, should be assessed. Until now, Irish practitioners making this assessment had to rely upon the presumption that the Irish position would reflect the approach from an English legal perspective, being the principles as set out by the English courts in a series of decisions commencing with Re George Inglefield Ltd. These decisions demonstrated a reluctance to re-characterise a transaction that is described as a sale as something else, unless the transaction is clearly a "sham".

It is to be noted that in Re Montagu the recipient was a volunteer , that is, who gave no consideration for the transfer of title so he could not count as equity’s darling. In Akindele by contrast the defendant had given consideration under a valid contract for the assets he received. Should it be ‘unconscionable’ for a volunteer to retain the benefit of his receipt being one who paid nothing for what he received in breach of trust where as under a valid contract a defence of bona fide purchaser will always apply to commercial dealings.