Sally Randall

Knowledge Lawyer

srandall@gtlaw.com.au

+61 2 9263 4029

+61 402 346 595

Sydney

Download Vcard

Sally's Insights

View All Insights

21/08/19

Contract variations – when will a ‘practical benefit’ be adequate consideration?: Hill v Forteng Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 105

In this case, the Full Federal Court found that there were sufficient ‘practical benefits’ received by an employee director as consideration for his agreement to a reduced salary in circumstances where the company was likely to become insolvent. The case provides useful guidance on how the Court approaches the question of practical benefits as consideration for a contract variation.

08/07/19

“Subject to contract” – binding or not?: The Edge Development Group Pty Ltd v Jack Road Investments Pty Ltd [2019] VCA 91

In this case the Victorian Court of Appeal found that a letter of offer signed by both parties but expressed to be “subject to the contract being executed” did not amount to a binding contract for the sale of the relevant property.

08/07/19

Section 180 as stepping stone for director personal liability for a company’s disclosure contraventions: ASIC v Vocation Limited (in Liquidation) [2019] FCA 807

In this case, the Federal Court has imposed personal liability on 3 directors of Vocation Limited (In Liquidation) under section 180 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) on the basis that they caused or permitted Vocation to commit breaches of its continuous disclosure obligations and the misleading and deceptive conduct prohibitions.

01/04/19

Implying terms to form a contract? UK decision in Wells v Devani

The recent UK Supreme Court decision in Wells v Devani [2019] UKSC 4 sits at odds with current Australian approaches to incomplete contracts.

14/12/18

Death of a funeral planning business: Ancient Order of Foresters in Victoria Friendly Society Ltd v Lifeplan Australia Friendly Society Ltd [2018] HCA 43

This case is a reminder of the potentially devastating commercial consequences of knowingly assisting in breaches of fiduciary duties owed by employees to their former employers to protect business connections and other confidential information. In this case, the High Court ordered a business to account for its entire capital value of $14.8 million which included both actual and anticipated profits, and profits which may not have been the ‘direct result’ of knowing assistance in the breach.

13/12/18

Postponement by the board of a meeting called by shareholders under section 249F: Wun v CellOS Software Ltd [2018] FCA 1947

The Federal Court has held that a board may postpone a meeting called by shareholders under section 249F in circumstances where there is a power in the company’s constitution permitting the board to postpone meetings and such power is exercise by the board for a proper purpose and the postponement period is reasonable. In such circumstances, the Court held that the postponement was not an unlawful interference with the statutory right of shareholders under section 249F.

You are here

People

Sally Randall

Sally's Insights

Pages