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 472

Can a company indemnify officers against legal costs and expenses incurred in defending criminal proceedings prior to verdict?: Note Printing Australia Ltd v Leckenby 2015 VSCA 105
  • Gilbert + Tobin
  • Australia
  • June 26 2015

In this case, the Court found that on a proper construction of section 199A(3)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (and an analogous provision in a


When will a "hostile" minority shareholder be granted access to a company's books?: Mighty River International Limited v Mesa Minerals Limited 2015 FCA 462
  • Gilbert + Tobin
  • Australia
  • June 26 2015

In this case, GT acted for a minority shareholder who was granted access to the company's books under section 247A(1) of the Corporations Act 2001


Parties may be bound by their “subject to contract” negotiations: Stellard Pty Ltd & Anor v North Queensland Fuel Pty Ltd 2015 QSC 119
  • Gilbert + Tobin
  • Australia
  • June 26 2015

This case serves as a reminder to negotiating parties to be clear about their intentions regarding the binding nature of their 'subject to contract'


Failure to prohibit the mixing of funds may be fatal to a trust claim: Sino Iron Pty Ltd & Anor v Palmer & Anor (no 3) 2015 QSC 94
  • Gilbert + Tobin
  • Australia
  • June 26 2015

This case illustrates the importance of ensuring that that any intention to create a trust is clearly and expressly provided for in writing as courts


Directors should carefully consider the terms of exclusion clauses in their D&O policies: Oz Minerals Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors v AIG Australia Ltd 2015 VSC 185
  • Gilbert + Tobin
  • Australia
  • June 26 2015

In this case, a major shareholder and board position exclusion in a D&O policy was found to have been enlivened where the relevant shareholder was a


Interlocutory injunctions to compel transfer of domain names it’s possible!
  • Gilbert + Tobin
  • Australia
  • June 23 2015

A recent Federal Court case, Thomas International v Humantech 2015 FCA 541, piqued our interest because the Court made orders to compel the


High Court to consider if isolated genes are patentable
  • Gilbert + Tobin
  • Australia
  • June 15 2015

The High Court will hear oral argument in the D'Arcy v. Myriad Genetics Inc & Anor appeal on Tuesday, 16 - Wednesday, 17 June 2015 before all 7 High


Have a break: EU lags behind Australia in determining registrability of KIT-KAT shape
  • Gilbert + Tobin
  • Australia, European Union, United Kingdom
  • June 12 2015

For many years, Nestlé has been seeking registration of its KIT-KAT shape as a trade mark in various parts of the world with various degrees of


When will no notice constitute reasonable notice of a directors’ meeting?: Summerdowns Rail Ltd v Stevens 2015 NSWSC 321
  • Gilbert + Tobin
  • Australia
  • May 28 2015

In this case, the Supreme Court of New South Wales held that subject to any contrary provisions in the constitution, a meeting of a company


Court construes the meaning of “persons eligible to vote” for the purposes of a special majority shareholder approval: Melissa Alexander v Nicholas Edgar Burne 2015 NSWSC 345
  • Gilbert + Tobin
  • Australia
  • May 28 2015

In this case, the Supreme Court of New South Wales construed the meaning of "persons eligible to vote" for the purposes of a special majority