Risks of making financial forecasts

When a business is seeking to raise capital or advertise as being for sale financial forecasts are often made in a way so as to appeal to the target audience – investors or potential buyers.  In some cases however, the forecasts made do not translate into reality giving rise to potential legal consequences.  As forecasts are indicators often relied used by investors to make decisions on whether or not to invest, statements that are incorrect may amount to misleading and deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) (being Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)) and have potentially serious legal consequences. [Read more…]

Software litigation – how much evidence is enough?

Litigation involving software commonly involves allegations of copyright infringement and breaches of contractual obligations of confidence.  However, without an “anton pillar” style order, it can be challenging to substantiate the extent of any alleged breach due to the technological nuances involved with properly analysing available evidence.   This make it difficult for the plaintiff to decide whether or not to initiate legal proceedings against an infringing party.  In circumstances where a prospective applicant does not have complete access to the source code, it may be desirable to make an application for discovery prior to the start of proceedings pursuant to Rule 7.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (Rules). [Read more…]

A director’s duty to act in the best interests of the company: MG Corrosion Consultants Pty Ltd v Gilmour

The case of MG Corrosion Consultants Pty Ltd v Gilmour [2014] FCA 990 involved allegations of a director authorising unnecessary and excessive payments that caused detriment to a company and its shareholders.  This case serves as a reminder to directors of the importance of adhering to their duties under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).

[Read more…]

Restraint of trade clauses in commercial contracts

A restraint of trade occurs where one party (Covenantor) agrees with another party (Covenantee) to restrict their liberty in the future to carry on trade with other persons who are not parties to the contract see: Petrofina (Gt Britain) Ltd v Martin [1966] Ch 146 at 180.

Restraints of trade clauses are prima facie void, however, the presumption can be rebutted if the restraint is justified because it is reasonable in the circumstances.    Note that there is a significant divide between restraints in commercial contracts and those in employment contract with the latter being widely accepted as only being enforceable for a far shorter period of time. [Read more…]

The legal relationship of agency

The importance of establishing whether a legal relationship of agency exists, and if so, to what extent, can be critical when ascertaining whether a person had authority to enter into an agreement on behalf of another person or entity.  The precise legal nature of the relationship may be important to the parties if either are attempting to enforce their rights under an agreement between them. [Read more…]

The consequences of inaction in litigation in Queensland Courts

Litigation in the Queensland Court system, as governed by the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR), is largely driven by, and conducted at the pace of, the parties themselves.  However, there remain consequences where the parties fail to take any steps in the matter for extended periods of time. [Read more…]

Quantification of losses for breach of contract

A breach of contract can broadly be described as the failure to comply with any term of an agreement; some examples include a refusal to perform, incomplete performance, delay or unlawful termination.  Once it has been determined that a breach of contract has in fact occurred, the next question is how to determine the resulting loss and whether it can be recovered from the responsible party.  Whilst there is no hard and fast rule when attempting to quantify losses, there are certain principles which form part of the process of  assessing damages caused by a breach of contract.

[Read more…]

Interlocutory injunctions in patent disputes

An injunction is a Court order directing a person or entity to do a specific thing or refrain from doing something.  Whilst an injunction in itself can amount to final relief in litigious matters, it can also be sought on an interlocutory or temporary basis (Interlocutory Injunction).  This applies where a temporary remedy is sought to maintain the status quo until the larger legal issues can be heard at trial.

In matters relating to the infringement of a patent, an injunction may be sought by the patent owner (Applicant) to stop a defendant (Respondent) from doing the acts the patent owner alleges infringe the patent, until the Court has had the opportunity to determine whether or not the patent has been infringed.  In this article we consider Interlocutory Injunctions in patent matters and how the tests differ from non-patent matters. [Read more…]

Offers to settle: Federal Court Rules c.f. Calderbank offers

In litigation, an offer to settle is an offer by one party to the other to settle the dispute out of Court.  There are numerous advantages to settling a matter out of Court, including reduced legal fees, finality of proceedings and confidentiality of result.  A key issue for litigants when making or receiving an offer to settle is to understand the potential legal costs consequences of rejecting the offer.  In this article, we consider offers to settle in the Federal Court of Australia under both the common law and the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (Rules).

[Read more…]

What is a Mareva Order?

A Mareva order (Mareva Order), also known as a freezing order or asset protection order, is a special type of interlocutory injunction which restrains a defendant from dealing with the whole or part of their assets pending the outcome of legal proceedings.  In preventing a defendant from disposing of their assets in a way which may deprive the plaintiff of an effective remedy, Mareva Orders are a tool to prevent an abuse of court processes and protect the proper administration of justice.  In Queensland, Mareva Orders are dealt with in Chapter 8 Part 2 Division 2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR). [Read more…]

Dundas Lawyers
Street Address Suite 12, Level 9, 320 Adelaide Street Brisbane QLD 4001

Tel: 07 3221 0013

Send this to a friend