In the matter of NewSat Limited (receivers and managers appointed) (in liquidation) ACN 003 237 303 and the entities listed in the Schedule NSD1734/2015, 21 September 2016

In certain circumstances, a party who is under the compulsion of law – such as a subpoena or an order for production – to produce documents is entitled to be reimbursed its reasonable costs and expenses of compliance. In what circumstances may costs be recovered and what costs are recoverable?

Prince Alfred College Incorporated v ADC [2016] HCA 37

Industry News

Life Insurance Code of Practice
The FSC released a discussion draft of the Life Insurance Code of Practice in August. The Code will commence on 1 October 2016, and companies have a transition period until 30 June 2017

Productivity commission draft report on insurance within superannuation
The Productivity Commission recently released its draft report: How to Assess the Competitiveness and Efficiency of the Superannuation System (the Draft Report)

In our TurkAlert of March 2016 we foreshadowed the publication of the NSW parliamentary report on proposals for amending the law to combat serious invasions of privacy. On March 3 2016 as scheduled, the report was issued with seven recommendations.

Penrith City Council v Healey [2016] NSWCA 161

The Supreme Court of NSW has found that a vendor on a contract for sale of land had no entitlement to a cash deposit from a purchaser after a deposit bond used in place of cash by the purchaser had expired.

The decision of Parkes v Mamo [2016] NSWSC 1129 highlights the care vendors should take to have in place contract clauses to protect themselves when unforeseen delays result in deposit bonds or other guarantees expiring before completion.

Notman v Wesfarmers Limited & Floyd Industries Pty Ltd [2016] VSC 457

Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd (In liquidation) v Collins and Anor; Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd (In liquidation) v Tomes [2016] VSCA 128

The Timbercorp Appeals allow group members to pursue separate and individual claims and defences notwithstanding a group proceeding, of which they were a part, earlier being decided against them by the Supreme Court.

The notion of ‘divisible property’ in bankruptcy is broadly framed but it has some exclusions. A right by a bankrupt to the recovery of damages or compensation for personal injury is one such exclusion. Simply because a personal injury enlivens a right to a claim for a specific amount under an insurance policy, does not materially change the character of that right: it is a right to recover damages or compensation in respect of a personal injury. Accordingly, such a claim under a policy of insurance is excluded from the scope of divisible property.

Averkin v Insurance Australia Ltd [2016] NSWCA 122

The recent New South Wales Court of Appeal case of Averkin v Insurance Australia Ltd [2016] NSWCA 122 highlights the difficulties in maintaining a strong defence when fraud is alleged rather than relying on the gaps or weaknesses in the plaintiff’s own case. This case involved a strict ruling adverse to the insurer on the question of the admissibility of a police report as a business record.