Youyang Pty Ltd V Minter Ellison Morris Fletcher

2. Facts: Plaintiff Irene George (P) is filing suit against Defendant Jordan Marsh Co. (D) for mental anguish and emotional distress which resulted in two heart attacks. D sold goods on credit to P’s emancipated son, who purchased them on P’s account. D alleged that P stated in writing that she would pay the debts (which she did not incur), even though it is understood that P did not make this guarantee. D then attempted to intimidate P into paying these debts she did not owe by calling her at late hours, by mailing her bills, by sending her letters stating late charges were being added on and that her credit had been revoked, and by numerous other tactics. P suffered great

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 had alleged that the second defendant contemplated section 727 for the sale of securities and did not disclose this to the investors. ASIC also mentioned that Astra Nominees was in a position to sell the shares it had if the offers were accepted. This was completely obligatory with regards to the share subscription agreements between ASIC and Astra Nominees (Federal Court of Australia, 2015).

02/07/2014, the Woolwich Crown Court case for the accusations of theft of a garden gazebo, that got said to have got stolen from; Bianca Road from the day of my friends Birthday party, on this day the trial took place that had been set and I got Found Not Guilty, before the trial even managed to start.

The Australian Securities and Investments launched civil proceedings in the supreme court of New South Wales against James Hardies Industries, its directors and officers. It was found that each of them had failed in his duty to exercise care and diligence and breached the Corporation Act 2001.This case is considered as a landmark decision in Australia corporate governance as it sheds light on role of directors and executives when taking important matters to the board and implementing them.

Salomon v Salomon and Co. Ltd (1897) AC 22 - when Aron Salomon sold his business to Salomon and Co. Ltd. Company, where he was still the major shareholder and some of his family was also a member. He also received a debenture as part of the payment for a secured term. But when the company has gone into liquidation during the 1890’s some argued that his

This decision is an important one as it contains useful guidance from the Court. Now we know: the Court would consider international business activities of a company when assessing whether they are regularly engaged in business, and common law concepts are relevant when determining whether an object is a fixture. Perhaps more importantly, what we have learnt is that GE should have registered its security interest as perfection means its interest would not vest in Forge when administrators were

On 1 February 2012, an oil tanker known as The North Star operated and owned by Poseidon Ltd, is grounded a mile near the port of Swansea. The tanker broke up and started leaking crude oil into the sea. The leak is then washed up on the beaches surrounding Swansea. The tankers’ grounding was wholly caused by Jeremy’s negligence, a pilot employed by SHA, Swansea Harbor Authority. Due to heavy seas, salvage attempts for the vessel became difficult. As a result of this, it took The Ocean Salvation crew about four days to reach the grounded tanker. At this point, more than 10,000 tonnes of crude oil had spilled into the sea. The Ocean Salvation is operated by Seamorgan

Smithton ltd (formerly Hobart) brought a claim for a loss suffered when the two companies Insureprofit ltd and Mariona ltd failed on their obligations to pay margin calls under contract with the claimant. The claim was brought against Mr Naggar who was a majority shareholder of Hobart and himself and his family owned and controlled the two companies who went insolvent. Hobart alleged that Mr Nagger was either a de facto or shadow director and had breached the duties he owed towards the company.

The Australian Security and Investments Commission (ASIC), is an independent government body that acts as Australia’s corporate regulator. The organisation is responsible for regulating Australian companies, financial markets, financial services organisations, and professionals working in investment, superannuation, insurance, deposit taking, and credit . ASIC administers a number of laws, most notably the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act and the Corporations Act , from which it derives the majority of its powers. According to the ASIC Act the organisation should strive to improve the performance of the financial system, promote the confident participation of investors and consumers within that system, and administers the laws that authorise its functions and powers effectively and with the least possible procedural requirements . However ASIC achieves only partial success in fulfilling its organisational goals, and thus only fulfils its role in society to a limited extent. For example, ASIC was slow and unproductive in handling allegations of fraud and incompetence amongst financial planning advisers working for the Commonwealth (CBA). Although ASIC was able to identify negligent parties, the processes of ASIC’s investigation were long-drawn-out and enforcement action did not adequately account for the scope of misconduct suggested by their investigation. Situations such as this indicate ASIC’s inability to work effectively as a corporate regulator.

If parties enter into a contract that is reflective or derives from a mistake, under common law the contract may be void or voidable. The basis of this decision depends on the type of mistake. Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson presented a unilateral mistake, in which only one party is mistaken, and in this case, a mistake as to the identity. The difficulty lies when judges must decide whether a contract is void or voidable, which will only protect one of the two arguably innocent parties, the original property owner or the bona fide purchaser. However, the approaches previously taken by the Courts have led to a lack of certainty and coherence in the interests of commercial transactions, and so the Shogun case presented an opportunity for clarification. I am going to raise the argument that the law of mistake is in need of a reform, by following Lord Millett’s proposal to no longer follow the cases Cundy v Lindsay and Ingram v Little. The reasoning within this argument will establish that the cases are inconsistent, lack support for third parties and fail to establish the authority of creditworthiness over identity in commercial contracts. Alternatively, the cases Phillips v Brooks and Lewis v Averay should be used to create a clear established line of case law which can be seen as a fair and practical approach towards mistake and protecting the bona fide purchaser.

In Li CJ’s judgment in A Solicitor v Law Society of Hong Kong [2008] 2 HKC 1, he commented in paragraph 9 that the “rigid and inflexible adherence by this Court to the previous precedents may unduly inhibit the proper development of the law and may cause injustice in individual cases. The great strength of the common law lies in its capacity to develop to meet the changing needs and circumstances of the society in which it functions.” In this essay, this statement would be discussed with reference to the role of the courts and their relationship to the legislature.

Interest income of US$66,023,141 (~A$75,028,696) accrued to SRC as a debt in 2010 of income under the terms of a loan agreement on 28th April 2006 between News Limited and SRC (i.e. the News loan agreement); This interest was not paid until 2011 year of income on 2nd July 2010, and on 8th July 2010; SRC compensated Australian withholding tax of A$7,502,870 in respect of this

In the remaining line, and LC issuance finances can belief mercantilism to beneficiary of LC on the supposal of documentation produced as per the status and conditions of text of assets. The parties under proprietor of credit do not individual any suitable to physically try the noesis of artefact. So, if the buyer needs to support and fill on the lineament of artefact he buys, he can institute an inspection stipulation in accolade of assets. Erst opened habitual and sealed award of attainment, the importer/buyer already equal up with the said line accomplishment communicating and cannot occurrence in between. Due to different reasons, especially on merchandising cost modification, if vendee needs to plosive his commodity prescribe he cannot do

I have no doubt that matter related to above will get sorted in due course, but in my opinion it could have been handled far better thereby avoiding much stress to shareholders, some I know have sold at a loss simply through a lack of confidence in Mr Parry’s management style, and that my fellow shareholders …………..is so sad.