We are delighted to welcome Tom Adamson to the MST Lawyers as an Associate in our Disputes and Litigation team. Tom has over 6 years of experience, having practised law in Queensland and New South Wales before making the move... The post Tom Adamson joins the Litigation Team appeared first on MST Lawyers ..read more

By Phil Colman Cash flow is critical for all businesses. Prudent businesses are careful about giving credit and firm in... The post I have just received an unfair preference claim. What is this and what should I do? appeared first on MST Lawyers ..read more

Since 2020, builders and homeowners have faced the significant challenges of delays and rising supply costs in the construction industry.... The post Important Updates for Builders and Homeowners: Navigating Domestic Building Disputes and VCAT Delays appeared first on MST Lawyers ..read more

By: Lee Filkin, Lawyer, MST Lawyers A recent New South Wales Court of Appeal decision in 183 Eastwood Pty Ltd v Dragon Property Development & Investment Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCA 72 has highlighted the importance of rectifying inaccurate data in your company’s public record within the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) register and not allow unauthorised persons to hold out that they have authority to bind your company. Background In this case, an individual named Scott Chan fraudulently portrayed himself as the agent of a company. This company (183 Eastwood) owned a proper ..read more

By Alicia Hill, Principal and Harriette Singh, Law Clerk Introduction On 25 August 2022, the New South Wales Court of Appeal hear the case of Bluemine Pty Ltd (in liq) v AKA (Civil) Pty Ltd and other related matters [2022] NSWCA 160. The Court of Appeal held that the appellants face a high burden when appealing findings of fact, and acknowledged the difficulties for appeal Courts in addressing issues of witness credibility. Background In 2013 five companies, Earth Civil Australia Pty Ltd (Earth Civil), Bluemine Pty Ltd (Bluemine), RCG CBD Pty Ltd (RCG), Diamondwish Pty Ltd (Diamondwish) and Ra ..read more

By Mark Skermer, Principal, and Darsh Chauhan, Law Clerk Introduction On 24 April 2023 the Court of Appeal of Supreme Court of Queensland delivered judgment in the matter of Allied Rural Pty Ltd v Stimpson [2023] QCA 077. The Court unanimously held that the administrator’s appointment to the company was valid and that the variation by the prior Court to his remuneration was justified. This article examines why the Court of Appeal of Queensland determined that an increase in the administrator’s remuneration ordered by a prior Court was reasonable in the circumstances. Background Allied Rural Pt ..read more

By Mark Skermer, Principal, and Darsh Chauhan, Law Clerk Introduction On 8 March 2023 the High Court of Australia delivered judgment in the matter of Laundy Hotels (Quarry) Pty Ltd v Dyco Hotels Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 6. The Court unanimously held that the vendor party to the contract was not in breach of a provision requiring it to ‘carry on the Business in the usual and ordinary course as regards its nature, scope and manner’ by its failure to fully operate the hotel business following a declaration by the Minister restricting trading hours in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Background The pa ..read more

By Lee Filkin, Lawyer and Alicia Hill, Principal Recent Australian developments in the law of defamation have imposed increased evidentiary burdens on plaintiffs. Does this mean it is harder for plaintiffs to make a claim for defamation? Or is it now also easier for publishers of defamatory material to get away with it? This article addresses the changes and considers the implications for those wanting to bring a defamation claim. Background On 1 July 2021 the Model Defamation Amendment Provisions 2020 (MDPs) commenced in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and the Australia ..read more

By Alicia Hill, Principal and Robert Kukuruzovic, Law Clerk The Supreme Court recently allowed a method of rent review which assessed the total value of a subdivided property and then split that amount between the multiple lot owners. While this appeared to sit outside the bases for rent review allowed by legislation, the Court found that it was permissible. This article reviews the case to explain how the clause was found not to be in breach of the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic). Facts This case was an appeal from VCAT by two Appellants, Bojan Krajcar and Krajcar Family Pty Ltd. They were the L ..read more

By Alicia Hill, Principal and Matthew Deetlefs, Law Clerk During insolvency proceedings, administrators will generally be entitled to draw remuneration for their work from the assets of the company. However, where a company operates as a trustee or interim receivers were appointed before the administrators, there may be issues relating to the availability of assets to be drawn on for remuneration . This is particularly the case where the company’s operations were legally problematic, as was the case in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Marco (No 9) [2021] FCA 1306. In this cas ..read more