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 580

Deregistered companies and insurance claims: room for improvement?
  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • Australia
  • February 4 2016

When a company is deregistered, it ceases to exist. So what happens when a person has a genuine claim against that company but fails to commence


Staying alive: reviving lapsed development approvals
  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • Australia
  • February 2 2016

Development approvals in Queensland do not last forever and determining the lapsing date of an approval is not always simple. An approval lapsing can


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


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


Corporate group relief (deed of cross-guarantee) - time to apply for relief could be now
  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • Australia
  • November 30 2015

It is common that large corporate groups seek to take advantage of relief provided by ASIC to reduce both the regulatory compliance burden and the