TurkAlerts |
12/06/13 TURKALERT: Farm Debt Mediation Act update
The NSW Supreme Court has rejected the contention that settlement terms entered into between a farmer and a lender during the course of litigation, constituted a new loan agreement which was required to be mediated under the Farm Debt Mediation Act NSW 1994 (the ‘Act’) (Hargraves Secured Investments Limited v Sharpe). Author: Lisa Dorman Practice Areas: Banking1
24/05/2013 TURKALERT: Hopping on the Security of Payments Bandwagon & Staying On
NSW legislation allows subcontractors in the building and construction industries an alternative to conventional litigation to recovery of debts. This mechanism allows subcontractors to attack the principal and by-pass the head contractor. A fast acting subcontractor could even by-pass the Voluntary Administration scheme. Speed is the key. Author: Millie Teh Practice Areas: Commercial Disputes & Transactions1
16/05/13 TURKALERT: Proactive creditor saves significant asset for the benefit of creditors of a deceased estate
Recently, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia was presented with an opportunity to firmly restate the factors relevant in identifying and avoiding multiple courts being involved in the administration of deceased estates; see Bendigo & Adelaide Bank Limited v Feldman [2013] FCCA 241. Author: Michael Jacobs Practice Areas: Banking1
13/05/13 TURKALERT: Insurance Recoveries - New Rules Affecting Priority
The government has introduced a bill to amend existing legislation relating to distribution of proceeds from insurance subrogation.The changes will favour the party that funds a recovery action whether it be the insured taking the action or the insurer exercising a right of subrogation. Author: Daniel Turk Practice Areas: Commercial Disputes & Transactions
1
13/05/13 TURKALERT: Overtaking a turning vehicle – where does the blame lie?
Waterfall v Antony [2012] VSC 458The Victorian Supreme Court has considered the issues of negligence in motor vehicle collisions involving turning and overtaking vehicles when faced with conflicting versions of events. The decision emphasizes that the mere fact that the one party may be performing an unexpected, or even illegal, manoeuver does not obviate the need of the other party to ensure it continues to undertake all appropriate steps whilst driving. Practice Areas: Insurance & Financial Services
1
08/05/2013 TURKALERT: Queensland Court of Appeal not “nuts” - Domestic occupiers not required to remove all risks
Graham v Welsh [2012] QCA 282On 19 October 2012 the Queensland Court of Appeal found in favour of the defendant occupier in an appeal from an action brought by a plaintiff in the Queensland District Court who slipped on a large gumnut which had fallen from a gum tree onto the entry stairs to a residential property. Author: Paul Angus Practice Areas: Insurance & Financial Services
1
02/05/13 TURKALERT: Totally and Permanently Disabled and still at work?
Hannover Life Re of Australasia Ltd v Dargan [2013] NSWCA 57The Court of Appeal has recently delivered a major ruling regarding the interpretation of TPD definitions, including the issues of retraining and whether a claimant can satisfy the definition of
TPD if they are working part-time.
This paper will review the Court of Appeal’s decision regarding the interpretation of TPD definitions. Author: Lisa Norris / Michael Iacuzzi Practice Areas: Insurance & Financial Services
1
29/04/13 TURKALERT: Bankers must know their products
In Coco v Westpac Banking Corporation [2012] NSWSC 565, the Supreme Court of NSW found a bank guilty of having engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct as a result of the oral representations made to a customer by one of its financial advisors.It is a sobering lesson to all lenders to ensure that staff are trained and tested on their understanding of the financial products on offer. As this case demonstrates, verbal representations may trump what is contained in any written contract signed by the customer. Author: David McCrostie / Fiona Reynolds Practice Areas: Banking
1
22/04/13 TURKALERT: Who is an ‘existing recipient’ of weekly payments?
In Zeljko Komljenovic v Facility Management Solutions Pty Ltd [2013] NSWWCC 69 (‘Komljenovic’) and Khalid Mohammadi v Chandler Macleod Group t/as Ready Workforce Pty Ltd (WCC: 6998/12) (‘Mohammadi’) the Workers Compensation Commission considered the definition of an ‘existing recipient’ of weekly payments.The Workers Compensation Commission held that a worker, who made a claim for compensation prior to 1 October 2012 but was not in receipt of weekly benefits at that time, was not an ‘existing recipient’ of weekly payments for the purposes of the 2012 amendments. This was despite the fact that the worker was retrospectively awarded weekly benefits immediately before 1 October 2012 and thereafter. Author: Mary Karekos Practice Areas: Employers Liability
1
12/04/13 TURKALERT: Does Santa need a little helper?
In the case of Bainbridge v James and Jacotine (trading as James Leigh Promotions) & Liuzag Custodians [2013] VSCA 12, the Victorian Supreme Court - Court of Appeal – recently considered whether, amongst other things, the actions of a particularly risk averse occupier create a duty of care. Author: Peter Moriarty / Benjamin Karalus Practice Areas: Insurance & Financial Services1
