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.
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).
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
The Plaintiff’s estate was sequestrated in Federal Magistrates Court on May 12 2009, for failure to pay Council court costs . An application by the Plaintiff for an extension in time to appeal this sequestration was
Case Comment: John Michael Malins v Solicitors Regulation Authority  EWHC 835 (Admin) 2017 WL 01339062
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:
The appellant, Parkview Queensland Pty Ltd (“Parkview”), is a building contractor who commenced construction of a residential property development under a standard form building contract with Fortia funds Management Ltd (“Fortia”), the developer. Fortia financed the construction under a loan facility with the Bank of Western Australia Ltd (“BankWest”).
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).
In this case, Kennedy v NSW Minister for Planning  NSWLEC 129 the plaintiff is identified as Roy “Dutch” Kennedy on behalf of Sandon Point Aboriginal Tent Embassy and the defendant is the NSW Minister for planning . The case was heard in the NSW Land and Environment Court by Justice Biscoe. The applicant is lodging a review, and thus challenging the grounds of the original decision in relation to the legality of an administrative decision by the Minister for the Stockland’s Developments Pty Ltd.
The case was then taken to the Supreme Court of New South Wales under s 119 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (NSW) , where the Court decided in Norrie’s favour. It was stated that,
Introduction An estate planning attorney or lawyer is very important, not only for those who have vast land anticipating for a great future and would not want to meet death without having effectively planned for it Finding an estate planning attorney in Temecula so that we could draw a will, seemed quite a great deal than we had anticipated, but however, we were able to trace the most appropriate attorney for our needs through HuffingtonPost (huffingtonpost.com), who was able to guide us through the whole process while considering all our financial needs and explaining to us on how the process works as well as how we could be able to place our will and trust to fit in settling our land to potential heirs in the future. Description We were really
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
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.
IN CONSIDERATION OF THE COVENANTS and agreements contained in this Sales Agreement the parties to this Agreement agree as follows: