| TMA Australia Pty Ltd v Indect Electronics & Distribution GmbH (NSWCA) - contract - estoppel - consumer law - no entitlement to ongoing supply of parts or support arising from implied term or estoppel - appeals dismissed |
| Nicholson Street Pty Ltd (Receivers & Managers Appointed) (In Liq) v Letten (VSC) - pleadings - trusts and trustees - breach of trust - accessorial liability - transparent protection of beneficiaries - inadequacy of pleadings - leave to file amended statement of claim refused |
| Benchmark Television |
| |
|
|
|
| Martin Luitingh and Terry Grace on Advocates’ Immunity in Australia |
| Advocates’ immunity has been a controversial topic for many years. Barrister Martin Luitingh argues that Australia is alone in maintaining the immunity and should abandon it. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read) |
TMA Australia Pty Ltd v Indect Electronics & Distribution GmbH [2015] NSWCA 343
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
Macfarlan & Meagher JJA; Bergin CJ Eq
Contract - estoppel - consumer law - appellants (TMA) purchased car parking guidance systems from Indect - Indect advised TMA that TMA would no longer distribute its products, directly supply equipment, parts or services, and that TMA would need to obtain parts and services from Indect distributor - TMA claimed Indect’s inclusion of authenticity check feature in systems involved breach of supply contract and unconscionable conduct. - TMA claimed entitlement to receive ongoing supply of parts and support from Indect for systems it resold and installed on basis of contractual implied term, equitable estoppel and unconscionable conduct by Indect - primary judge fund in Indect’s favour - held: no breach of contract or unconscionable conduct - proposed term not necessary for effective operation of supply contracts - estoppel claim failed - primary judge erred in formulation of unconscionability under s21 Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) - TMA did not engage in conduct against good conscience - appeals dismissed.
TMA
|
Nicholson Street Pty Ltd (Receivers & Managers Appointed) (In Liq) v Letten [2015] VSC 583
Supreme Court of Victoria
Judd J
Pleadings - trusts and trustees - breach of trust - accessorial liability - plaintiffs sought to file further amended statement of claim in proceedings - defendants contended pleadings deficient and trustees not competent to prosecute in absence of beneficiaries or representative beneficiary under each trust - proper plaintiff - adequacy of pleading of fraud and dishonesty - Barnes v Addy - held: interests of beneficiaries must be transparently protected so long as plaintiffs maintaining case based on second limb of Barnes v Addy - plaintiffs failed to make sufficiently precise allegations of conduct against second defendant - leave to file amended statement of claim refused.
Nicholson Street
|
