We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 928

Is it necessary for a franchisor to enforce exclusivity clauses in franchise agreements?
  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • Australia
  • January 25 2016

This franchising update focuses on RPR Maintenance Pty Ltd v Marmax Investments Pty Ltd 2015 FCAFC 127, and the Full Federal Court's interpretation


Liquidated Damages: does ‘$nil’ mean ‘no liability’?
  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • Australia
  • January 14 2016

Contractors beware: even if your contract says your liability for liquidated damages is "$Nil", "NA" or "Zero", that may not be the end of the


Changes to a seller’s obligations if a property is registered on the Contaminated Land or Environmental Management Register
  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • Australia
  • December 18 2015

The amended Environmental Protection Act 1994 ("EPA") came into effect on 2 October 2015. Amongst other things, the EPA was amended in relation to


Proposed Amendments to Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 (QLD)
  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • Australia
  • December 18 2015

On the 13 October 2015 the Retail Shop Leases Amendment Bill 2015 (QLD) ("the Bill") was introduced into Parliament for consideration. It replaced


Agreed penalty submissions with regulators- keeping them civil: Barbaro has no effect on civil penalty proceedings
  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • Australia
  • December 11 2015

The High Court has ruled that the decision of Barbaro v The Queen does not apply to civil penalty proceedings and a court is not precluded from


You shall not pass! High Court rejects Barbaro principle in civil penalty proceedings.
  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • Australia
  • December 10 2015

The High Court has overturned a decision of the Federal Court of Australia and ruled that the Barbaro principle does not apply to civil penalty


High Court of Australia - Allen v Chadwick relying on the care and skill of an intoxicated driver: the lesser of two evils?
  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • Australia
  • December 10 2015

The High Court of Australia has recently considered the extent to which a Plaintiff who willingly agreed to ride as a passenger in a


It might be misleading, but did you rely on it? The importance of ‘reliance’ in misleading and deceptive conduct claims
  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • Australia
  • December 10 2015

Misleading and deceptive conduct as mentioned in past updates is one of the most common causes of franchising disputes. However, franchisees should


A joint will is not ideal
  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • Australia
  • December 8 2015

The recent decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal in Masci v Masci & Anor concerned the interpretation of a joint will of Fernando and


Rogue security interests - do they belong? What can you do?
  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • Australia
  • November 30 2015

Since the commencement of the Personal Property Securities regime in January 2012, the focus has been on what security interests should be registered