Daily Construction
|
|
|
|
BenchTV CPD *Special* $264 (incl. GST) for 12 months
_
Use coupon code CPD2023
at checkout
Subscribe and pay here
Stay at home and complete your CPD!
Benchmark, with over 790 productions of CPD material across all areas of law, so you can complete your points from the comfort of your home or office.
“Great price, fantastic quality” - “The best deal for CPD”
Hear from the lawyers who ran the cases.
For groups of 2 or more email benchtv@benchmarkinc.com.au
*Price on renewal will change to $330 (incl. GST) per annum.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Preview: Ensuring purpose as a practitioner
with Claire Bibby, Lara Wentworth, Katie Gray and Frieda Levycky |
| Coaching for lawyers is an issue that has had little if any air time in the Southern hemisphere but is booming in the Northern part of the globe. Find out what it is all about and why it is such an important issue for lawyers and law firms alike in this episode of BenchTV.
Subscribers can watch the full video at:
Bench TV CPD
If you wish to subscribe to Continuing Professional Development you can do so here: Register here |
|
|
|
|
|
IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON THE LEGAL PROFESSION
|
|
The Law Society of NSW has created a dedicated COVID-19 page with updates for the legal profession on courts, CPD events, legislation and social distancing requirements -
click here
|
|
|
Executive Summary and Podcast (One Minute Read)
|
|
| Independent Education Union of Australia v Corporation of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Toowoomba (FCA) - employment - industrial - whether contravention of s50 of Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) - whether industrial agreement applies to ex-employees - wage adjustments - intention of enterprise agreement ambiguous - reference to industrial and statutory context - application dismissed
|
| In the matter of Iconic Constructions Australia (NSW) Pty Ltd (NSWSC) - construction - banking - restitution - unjust enrichment - unauthorised withdrawals from company bank account - company's claim for restitution against defendants who withdrew those funds - voidable transactions - insolvent and uncommercial transactions - defence under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s588FG(1) - application allowed in part
|
| Ambrus v Buchanan (NSWSC) - real property - application for appointment of trustees pursuant to s66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) - defendants oppose appointment of trustees on grounds of hardship or unfairness and rely on promissory estoppel, alleged breach of fiduciary duty and unconscionability - mere hardship or unfairness not basis to refuse application - no other basis for refusal established - application allowed
|
|
Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
|
Independent Education Union of Australia v Corporation of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Toowoomba [2023] FCA 64
Federal Court of Australia
Thomas J
Employment law - industrial law - contravention - Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) - penalty - enterprise agreements - interpretation - not applicable to ex-employee - application for declaration and orders - pursuant to s39B(1A)(c) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s21 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), and ss545(1), 562 and 563 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Com) applicants claimed on proper construction of enterprise agreements respondents' employers were to pay wages at hourly rate and make superannuation contributions to second and third applicants' employees - claimed that respondents contravened s50 of FWA by contravening a term of an enterprise agreement and sought to be paid sum of money - respondents claimed that in accordance with provisions of FWA enterprise agreements did not apply to employees who resigned before agreements came into operation - fact that payment must be by lump sum after agreement was operative supported intent that agreement was referable to employees not ex-employee - interpretation suggested by applicants would remove safeguard provided by legislation and that was not outcome which was intended - interpretation advanced by respondents was correct interpretation ordinary meaning of words used supported interpretation - respondents' interpretation consistent with industrial context and purpose of arrangements for increase in wages embodied in enterprise agreement - respondents' interpretation consistent with requirements of, and approach taken in legislation and also with characteristic of statutory arrangements which were in place - application dismissed.
Independent Education Union of Australia |
In the matter of Iconic Constructions Australia (NSW) Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 3
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Williams J
Construction - banking - restitution - unjust enrichment - unauthorised withdrawals from company bank account - company's claim for restitution against defendants who withdrew those funds - voidable transactions - insolvent and uncommercial transactions - defence under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s588FG(1) - plaintiffs seek to recover from the first and third defendants amounts totalling $1,034,000 that were withdrawn from company's bank account in cash - numerous claims against first and third but ultimately pressed only a claim for restitution from third defendant in the amount of $984,000 and from first in the amount of $50,000 - alternative claims for orders under s588FF(1) requiring third and first defendant to pay to the Company the sums of $984,000 and $50,000 (respectively) on grounds that their withdrawals of those amounts from company's bank account are voidable pursuant to s588FE(3) because they were insolvent transactions and uncommercial transactions - fact company had given third respondent authority, as against bank account, to operate bank account did not mean Company authorised third defendant to withdraw company's money from bank account for third defendant's own benefit - Twigg v Twigg (2022) 402 ALR 119; [2022] NSWCA 68 - third defendant unjustly enriched by receipt of relevant amount of company's funds - third defendant had no authority to take relevant amount - company entitled to restitution from third defendant plus interest - company not entitled to restitution against first defendant in respect of cash withdrawal - claim against first defendant under s588FF in relation to his $50,000 withdrawal - elements of s588FE(3) satisfied - first defendant received no benefit because of relevant transaction - s588FG(1) provides that a court is not to make an order under s588FF that materially prejudices a right or interest of a person other than a party to the transaction if it is proved that the person received no benefit because of the transaction - plaintiffs' claims against first defendant dismissed - judgement in favour of plaintiff against third defendant - application allowed in part.
In the matter of Iconic Constructions Australia (NSW) Pty Ltd |
Ambrus v Buchanan [2022] NSWSC 1628
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Williams J
Real property - application for appointment of trustees pursuant to s66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) - land owned by 13 co-owners as tenants in common and the plaintiff held a 1/56th share - plaintiff sought order under s66G appointing trustees to hold the land on statutory trust for sale - 12 defendants opposed order, contending plaintiff be precluded from applying for order on basis of fiduciary duties, and promissory estoppel and on basis that plaintiff would receive unconscionable benefit if land were sold by trustees and net sale proceeds distributed between co-owners in accordance with their respective interests in the land - grounds on which the Court will ordinarily decline to make an order under s66G are limited, such as where the order would be inconsistent with a proprietary right, or a contractual or fiduciary obligation or equitable estoppel against the application - unfairness and hardship were not basis for refusal of order under Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) s66G - respondents failed to demonstrate that applicant owed any fiduciary duty to respondents, let alone duty that precluded applicant from exercising right to apply to Court under s66G for appointment of trustee - respondents failed to establish equitable estoppel against applicant’s application for appointment of trustees to hold land on statutory trust for sale - application granted.
View Decision |
|
|
|
|
