| Crescent Capital Partners Management Pty Ltd v Crescent Funds Management (Aust) Ltd (FCA) - trade practices - financial services - respondents engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct - applicant entitled to relief
|
| Swift v Wearing-Smith (NSWCA) - negligence - respondent injured in fall from balcony when balustrade gave way - appellant owners not liable
|
| Bergman v CGU Insurance Ltd (VSC) - insurance - landlord's insurance - fire at property - non-disclosure - misrepresentation - insurer's liability reduced to nil
|
| Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Manasseh (WASCA) - contract - guarantee - bank not entitled to payment of amount under guarantee - appeal dismissed
|
Dear Subscriber
1. This Benchmark Television is with Gabriel Wendler and Stephen Odgers SC on the Commonwealth Crime Commission and the judicial power of the Commonwealth.
2. For Benchmark CLE subscribers we have prepared notes which we will forward to them at their request.
3. Also for Benchmark CLE subscribers at their request we will forward them an advice notice evidencing when they accessed this production.
4. We also have a series of questions for Benchmark CLE subscribers which we will send to them at their request.
5. We will be in the next few days publishing some productions which are exclusively for Benchmark CLE subscribers.
6. You should watch on Wi-Fi to avoid excess data usage charges.
Warm regards
Alan Conolly for Benchmark
|
|
|
| Benchmark Television |
|
|
|
|
| Gabriel Wendler and Stephen Odgers SC on X7 v Australian Crime Commission [2013] HCA 29 |
| Gabriel Wendler and Stephen Odgers SC discuss the high court decision of X7 and the role of the Commonwealth Crime Commission. |
|
|
|
|
| Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read) |
Crescent Capital Partners Management Pty Ltd v Crescent Funds Management (Aust) Ltd [2016] FCA 229
Federal Court of Australia
Bennett J
Trade practices - misleading and deceptive conduct - financial services - applicant contended respondent entities' names (‘Crescent Wealth') were misleadingly or deceptively similar to its name and that respondents falsely or misleadingly made representations that services and products were connected to applicant - applicant sought relief under ss18 & 29 Australian Consumer Law and ss12DA & 12DB Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) - applicant also contended respondents were accessories to other respondents' contraventions - ss79, 761G Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - held: Crescent Wealth had engaged in conduct likely to mislead or deceive - position of individual respondents considered - applicant entitled to certain relief.
Crescent |
Swift v Wearing-Smith [2016] NSWCA 38
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
Meagher, Hoeben & Simpson JJA
Negligence - respondent injured when he fell from balcony at rear of appellants' premises when balustrade gave way - respondent alleged appellants negligent by allowing access to balcony - respondent succeeded in claim against appellants - ss5B & 5D(1)(a) Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) - appellants' response to recommendations contained in building inspection report - causation - held: primary judge erred in mechanism of balustrade's failure - primary judge's findings as to content of duty of care went beyond appellants' duty to exercise reasonable care - to extent defect identified appellants had acted reasonably - no reason for appellants to believe further structural work required on balustrade - breach of duty not established - appeal allowed.
Swift |
Bergman v CGU Insurance Ltd [2016] VSC 81
Supreme Court of Victoria
Hargrave J
Insurance - non-disclosure - misrepresentation - plaintiff obtained landlord's insurance for property he purchased - building on property damaged by fire - .property was vacant in preparation for demolition before commencing building works - plaintiff sought cost of rebuilding or repairing damaged portions of buildings - insurer refused payment on basis plaintiff failed to disclose intention to demolish, gave false answer to specific question and suffered no loss because he intended to demolish buildings - held: plaintiff breached s 21(1) Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) by not disclosing matters relevant to risk - plaintiff's answer to question concerning demolition was false and contained misrepresentation-insurer's liability reduced to nil by s28 - unnecessary to decide whether plaintiff suffered loss - judgment for insurer.
Bergman |
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Manasseh [2016] WASCA 41
Court of Appeal of Western Australia
McLure P; Buss & Murphy JJA
Contract - guarantee - respondent's husband borrowed money on behalf of company from bank - respondent provided guarantee secured by mortgage - bank contended guarantee continued for subsequent credit contracts offered or made to company - bank sued on one of the subsequent contracts (November 2009 credit contract) - respondent claimed liability came to an end on termination date of extension to guarantee to which she had agreed - respondent did not agree to guarantee November 2009 credit contract - primary judge held there was no misleading or deceptive conduct by bank and that respondent's obligation could only end when company had performed all of its obligations to bank and discharged its liability in full - primary judge held November 2009 credit contract was in substance a replacement agreement which adversely affected respondent's liability under guarantee - respondent would only become liable if she consented or entered into new guarantee - primary judge dismissed bank's claims under guarantee and mortgage dismissed - construction of guarantee - ‘Ankar' principle - held: bank' appeal dismissed.
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group |
