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

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

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).

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:

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

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.

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).

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

The court appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in divided opinion, reversed, with approval, the Court of Appeals concluded that must be read against the background of charitable trust law.

Australian common law largely depends on the discretion held by the court under equitable doctrine. If the termination of employment occurs as a result of employer’s wrongful repudiatory breach, the employee may be relieved from contractual obligations including restrictive covenants. However, the employer can seek for damages if the ex-employee breaches the equitable duty.[ Briggs v Oates [1990] ICR 473]

Estate Planning is a major part of the overall financial plan. We will discuss how to properly plan for the re-titling of your assets and accounts, how to bequest assets to your family and grandson, Sam and evaluate your legal documents. Hera Wealth Management is not a legal firm so please consult your attorney to file legal documents and establish our recommendations. Net Worth by Ownership is showed in the appendix. Below are the topics that we will go over related to your estate planning needs:

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 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".

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.

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.