| Krok
v Commissioner of Taxation (FCA) - legal professional privilege -
waiver - applicant required to discover documents in disputed categories
(I B) |
| Yara
Pilbara Fertilisers Pty Ltd [formerly known as Burrup Fertilisers Pty Ltd] v
Oswal (No 8) (FCA) - cross-vesting - Federal Court
proceedings transferred to Supreme Court of Victoria
(I B) |
| Agresta
v Trustee of the property of F Agresta, a Bankrupt (FCA)
- bankruptcy - trustee’s decision to reject proofs of debt upheld
(B G) |
| Andtrust
v Andreatta (NSWSC) - trusts and trustees - trustee’s
power under trust deed to extend vesting date - declaration
(B) |
| In
the matter of Imperium Projects Pty Ltd (NSWSC) - corporations -
derivative action - former director granted leave to bring proceedings on
company’s behalf
(B C) |
| Ckuj
as trustee of the Jaroslaw Andrew Oryszkiewycz Halyckyj Permanent Charitable
Fund v Attorney-General (NSW) (NSWSC) - trusts and
trustees - order for establishment of administrative scheme for charitable
trust
(B) |
| Graham v Western Australian Planning
Commission (WASCA) - costs - successful appeal from
decision of SAT - question of costs of proceedings before SAT remitted to SAT
(I C G) |
| Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read) |
Krok
v Commissioner of Taxation
[2015] FCA 51
Federal Court of Australia
Wigney J
Privilege - Commissioner sought
discovery of categories of documents - applicant opposed discovery of some
categories on basis of legal professional privilege - Commissioner did not
dispute documents caught by categories would attract legal professional
privilege - Commissioner maintained documents discoverable because it had been
impliedly waived- held: partial disclosure of advice provided to applicant, or disclosure
of gist, substance or effect of it, was inconsistent with confidentiality that
would otherwise attach to communications recording advice - privilege waived - applicant
required to discover documents that fell within disputed categories.
Krok (I B)
|
Yara Pilbara Fertilisers Pty
Ltd [formerly known as Burrup Fertilisers Pty Ltd] v Oswal (No 8) [2015] FCA 49
Federal
Court of Australia
McKerracher
J
Transfer
of proceedings - applicant sought to transfer proceeding to be heard with two
other proceedings in Supreme Court of Victoria - interlocutory application
supported by various cross-respondents - ss1337H & 1337L Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - s5(4) Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act
1987 (Cth) - held: all parties accepted interests of justice not served by
separate proceedings in two courts dealing with overlapping issues - risks
involved obvious potential for inconsistent factual findings and determinations
- time, expenses and other resources would be wasted - Federal Court proceeding
transferred to Supreme Court of Victoria pursuant to s1337H(2) Corporations
Act.
Yara
Pilbara Fertilisers Pty Ltd (I B)
|
Agresta
v Trustee of the property of F Agresta, a Bankrupt [2015] FCA 46
Federal Court of Australia
Gleeson J
Bankruptcy - applicant bankrupt sought review
of five decisions of trustee rejecting proofs of debt lodged respondents -
applicant sought extension of time, and that trustee’s decisions be reversed or
varied - ss104(1) & 104(2) Bankruptcy
Act 1966 (Cth) - provable debts - contractual relations - ss82(1) &
102(1) - held: time for making application extended - trustees decisions to
reject proofs confirmed.
Agresta (B G)
|
Andtrust v Andreatta [2015] NSWSC 38
Supreme
Court of New South Wales
McDougall
J
Equity
– trusts and trustees - plaintiff was trustee appointed under deed of trust - vesting
date defined as expiration of forty years from execution of deed - trustee
sought declaration that its power under the deed to vary empowered it to extend
vesting date but not so as to infringe rule against perpetuities - construction
of deed - held: relief under s81 Trustee
Act 1925 (NSW) not available - power to vary trusts set out in deed included
power to vary them by extending time for which they were to enure - power could
not operate to permit trustee to infringe rule against perpetuities, but that
eventuality was covered by clause - declaration made as to trustee’s power
under trust deed to extend vesting date.
Andtrust (B)
|
In the matter of Imperium
Projects Pty Ltd
[2015] NSWSC 16
Supreme
Court of New South Wales
Black
J
Corporations
– derivative action - former director and current shareholder of first
defendant company sought order under s237 Corporations
Act 2001 (Cth) granting leave to bring proceedings on behalf of company for
declarations that current directors contravened ss181 & 182, order that
they compensate company for damage, and an order for an account of profits -
best interests of company - serious questions to be tried - good faith - held: Court
satisfied former director established it was in company’s best interests to
bring proceedings in respect of some matters for which he sought leave to bring
derivative claims.
In the matter of Imperium
Projects Pty Ltd (B C)
|
Ckuj as trustee of the
Jaroslaw Andrew Oryszkiewycz Halyckyj Permanent Charitable Fund v Attorney-General
(NSW)
[2015] NSWSC 35
Supreme
Court of New South Wales
Darke
J
Trusts
and trustees - plaintiffs were trustees of charitable trust established by trust
deed - trustees sought order for settlement of administrative scheme in respect
of trust - proposed scheme provided for trust deed to be treated as varied in
respects falling into certain categories - Attorney-General regarded scheme was
appropriate, subject to qualification concerning proposed changes to objects
clause - ss6 & 13(2) Charitable
Trusts Act 1993 (NSW) - held: Court satisfied insertion of words was a
change which did not alter scope of objects of trust and fell within permissible
scope of administrative scheme - order made for establishment of administrative
scheme for charitable trust.
Ckuj
as trustee of the Jaroslaw Andrew Oryszkiewycz Halyckyj Permanent Charitable
Fund (B)
|
Graham v Western Australian
Planning Commission
[2014] WASCA 234
Court
of Appeal of Western Australia
Martin
CJ, Buss JA & Beech J
Costs
– Court of Appeal concluded State Administrative Tribunal lacked jurisdiction
to determine compensation payable for taking of lots – Court ordered
application to strike out proceedings with respect to determination of
compensation for taking of one lot be remitted to SAT - parties disagreed
whether Court should make order with respect to costs of proceedings before SAT
- held: Court should not exercise its power to make orders with respect to
costs of proceedings before SAT - proceedings not completed - SAT not jurisdiction
in which costs ordered as matter of course -contentious issues best determined
by SAT rather than Court - respondent to pay appellants’ costs of appeal -
question of costs of proceedings before SAT remitted to SAT.
Graham (I C G)
|
