Owners and managers that have operated in the corporate industry for a number of years are no doubt aware the value that a commercial lawyer can bring to a growing company. All too often, lawyers are considered to be a last resort in cases where some kind of legal matter
Directors Beware – Criminal Liability May Arise for Breaches by the Company The decision in ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) v Davies  FCA 1017, shows that directors may open themselves to personal criminal liability for any breaches that may have been committed by the company. The judgment of
In Note Printing Australia Ltd v Leckenby  VSCA 105, the Victorian Court of Appeal upheld the decision made in Leckenby v Note Printing Australia Ltd  VSC 538 requiring a company to indemnify its former Chief Executive Officer, John Leckenby, from the legal costs and expenses incurred in defending
Digital Communication and the Formation of Contracts In the digital world we now live in it is prudent to give due consideration to the numerous emails that are sent everyday; could you be unwittingly entering into a binding contract? Emails can now form a binding land contract between commercial entities
Company directors may take heart from Mariner decision Justice Beach in Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) v Mariner Corporation Ltd  FCA 589 had to consider questions relating to the statutory business judgment rule as outlined in s 180(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act), and some
Directors’ Duties: Traversing the corporate landscape of the bona fide and proper purposes rules in Bell
The Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal decision in Westpac Banking Corporation v Bell Group Ltd (in liq) [No 3]  WASCA 157 shone a spotlight on the issue of the fiduciary duties owed by directors to act in the bona fide interests of the company, and for proper purposes.
Residential property acquired for commercial purposes: How influential is the Australian Consumer Law?
In Carter v Delgrove Holdings Pty Ltd  FCCA 783, the Federal Circuit Court had to determine whether the respondent engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (the ACL) by first submitting the successful bid for a residential property in auction, then refusing