TurksLegal - TurksLegal

search
home \| logon \| advanced search

INSURANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES

COMMERCIAL DISPUTES & INSOLVENCY

WORKERS COMPENSATION

BUSINESS & PROPERTY

Welcome to the TurksLegal website

TurksLegal is a law firm operating from offices in Sydney and Melbourne. We focus on the legal issues that arise in the operation of businesses and the legal needs of individuals. Our clients operate in a variety of areas including insurance, banking, financial services, insolvency, general manufacturing, government, health care and many more.

Latest Publications
01/03/10: PAPER: GST and Vacant Land A recent Federal Court decision considers when a sale of vacant land can be liable for GST.

12/02/10: NEWSLETTER: Business & Property. Retail Security - February 2010 Shoplifting is estimated to cost Australian retail businesses approximately $600 million a year and it is increasing steadily. Bag checks can be used to reduce shoplifting, but retailers need to be aware of their rights and obligations when undertaking them.

12/02/10: PAPER: GST Input Tax Credits and Second Hand Goods A recent Federal Court decision considers when a taxpayer is entitled to an input tax credit for GST purposes in respect of the acquisition of second hand goods.

05/02/10: TURKALERT: Original Underwriter not Required - Court Upholds an Insurer’s Right To Avoid Under s29(2) of the ICA In Kenan Berk v Westpac Securities Administration Ltd & Anor the Supreme Court of NSW has found that a life insurer was entitled to avoid a policy pursuant to s29(2) of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) (the Act) for fraudulent misrepresentation and non-disclosure. The judgment is noteworthy because it clarifies one controversial point with respect to the nature of the underwriting evidence required under s29(2) — namely, that a life insurer does not necessarily have to call the original underwriter to establish that it would not have offered the policy on the same terms. The case was unusual because the insured made the concession that if the answers on the application were his, then he was guilty of fraud. Nonetheless the judgment still demonstrates that some truthful answers in an application document does not of itself lead to an inference that the insured has not been fraudulent.

Site by HKPS