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 50

Hauff v Miller 2013 QCA 48: “subject to finance” clauses
  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • Australia
  • July 12 2013

The Queensland Court of Appeal decision in Hauff v Miller reiterates that a purchaser will not always be able to rely on a 'subject to finance'


Emerging apportionment issues
  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • Australia
  • April 10 2014

The High Court decision in Hunt & Hunt v. Mitchell Morgan Nominees Pty Ltd ((2013) HCA 10) highlights the impact of proportionate liability where it


Courts warn against inflating property values
  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • Australia
  • June 20 2012

The recent decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Propell National Valuers (WA) Pty Ltd v Australian Executor Trustees Limited 2012 FCAFC 31 serves as a reminder of the duties and obligations that property valuers hold towards third parties relying on the content of their reports


Enforcement of guarantees against a wife the Yerkey v Jones principle
  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • Australia
  • June 29 2011

Despite criticism, a special equity established in the 1930s is still available which entitles a wife (if the circumstances permit) to relief from enforcement of a guarantee she has given as security for her husband’s debts


Unfair payment preferences: watch who you contract with?
  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • Australia
  • April 26 2012

The recent judgement of Kassem and Secatore v Commissioner of Taxation shows that not even the Commissioner of Taxation is immune to payments being clawed back where the ATO is paid in preference to other creditors


“Turning a blind eye”: a refresher
  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • Australia
  • January 27 2011

It is common knowledge that dishonesty will usually trigger an exclusion for cover under a professional indemnity policy


One super breach, multiple contraventions
  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • Australia
  • March 30 2012

On 6 February 2012, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) handed down its decision in Montgomery Wools Pty Ltd as trustee for Montgomery Wools Pty Ltd Super Fund v Commissioner of Taxation 2012 AATA 61 regarding related entity transactions between superannuation funds and related trust funds


Be cautious of the timing requirements for registering security interests on the PPSR
  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • Australia
  • June 14 2016

The full benefit of a security interest may not be obtained unless specific requirements are met under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009


High Court Settles Law on Penalty Clauses in Paciocco
  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • Australia
  • August 9 2016

On 27 July 2016, the High Court handed down its judgment in the matter of Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited 2016 HCA 28


Jessica Patrick
  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers