| Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in liq)(receivers and managers appointed) v General Electric International Inc (NSWSC) - personal property securities (PPS) law - lease was a PPS lease - defendants’ interests in turbines vested in plaintiff before appointment of administrators - plaintiffs interest superior - declarations
|
| Sprayworx Pty Ltd v Homag Australia Pty Ltd (NSWSC) - evidence - bias - no reason not to hear expert witnesses - affidavits admitted - application to exclude evidence of witnesses dismissed -
|
| Benchmark Television |
| |
|
|
|
| The Hon. Ian Coleman SC with Dasith Vithanage on property settlement |
| The Hon. Ian Coleman SC (Barrister) discusses Stanford v Stanford [2012] HCA 52; 247 CLR 108 and its effect on Hickey v Hickey (2003) FLC 93-143. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read) |
Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in liq)(receivers and managers appointed) v General Electric International Inc [2016] NSWSC 52
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Hammerschlag J
Personal property securities law - dispute arising from installation of turbine generator sets (turbines) - plaintiff entered lease with first defendant for rent of turbines for fixed term, and for provisions of services to plaintiff in relation to turbines - plaintiff went into voluntary liquidation after installation of turbines - plaintiff sought declaration pursuant to s267(2) Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) that defendants’ interests in turbines vested in plaintiff before administrators’ appointment and that its interest in turbines was superior to defendants’ - whether PPSA engaged - whether lease a PPS lease - held: lease was PPS lease - defendants’ interests in turbines vested in plaintiff immediately before administrators’ appointment - plaintiff’s interest superior to defendants’ - declarations granted.
Forge
|
Sprayworx Pty Ltd v Homag Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 51
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Harrison J
Evidence - plaintiff purchased industrial sander from defendant - plaintiff alleged machine defective, and that it purchased machine on basis of representations which were false and misleading or negligently made - plaintiff complained experts were partial witnesses and that objectivity flawed by close relationship to defendant - plaintiff claimed witnesses were not independent - plaintiff claimed witnesses could not be taken to have provided unbiased opinion - whether demonstration of bias - held: no legitimate forensic reason not to hear witnesses - affidavits should be admitted.
Sprayworx
|
