These proceedings involved a Licensing Agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant whereby the defendant was granted a licence to use intellectual property the subject of ten separate patents which related to surgical techniques to facilitate phalloplasty and which were described in the schedule to the Licensing Agreement. A description of the case is set out under the area of practice heading, Contract Law, on this website. One of the question concerned whether the Court should declare whether the defendant had terminated the Licensing Agreement. The declaration was made.
This matter involved claims, including claims for declaratory relief, in relation to an unadministered intestate estate where an administrator had been appointed 45 years ago and where the primary asset in the intestate estate was a rural property. Allegations were made by the plaintiff beneficiary that the administrator had maladministered the estate and sought accounting on the basis of wilful default. The claims were made in circumstances where the evidence was fallible and contemporary documents lacking. The matter also concerned an application by the plaintiff for revocation of grant of letters of administration to the first defendant administrator and appointment of replacement administrator. Another important aspect of the case involved the powers, duties, rights and of trustees, and, in particular, the power to provide for maintenance and advancement of minor beneficiaries. In this case the first defendant administrator used beneficiaries' entitlements to provide for their maintenance and advancement during their minority. The Court found that orders could be made authorising a trustee to apply income of a trust for maintenance, education and advancement of minor beneficiaries - particularly where the plaintiff beneficiary attained majority over 20 years ago and where the first defendant administrator was a single parent with limited source of income. The matter is also referred to under the Practice Area, "Succession and administration of estates" on this web-site.
In this matter, the applicants were former directors of a company insured by the respondent pursuant to a not-for-profit management liability policy and had been sued by the company and its liquidators in proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales for breach of fiduciary duties and breach of duty of care. The relevant insurance policy included an obligation to advance defence costs. The Insurer had accepted the obligation to pay defence costs incurred by the applicants in defending allegations of breach of duty of care and had paid 70 per cent of the applicants' defence costs pursuant to an allocation clause contained in the policy. A question for determination was whether the respondent Insurer was liable under the policy to pay costs incurred in defending the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. Central to the determination of this issue was whether the applicants were acting for or on behalf of the insured company. Another issue was whether the Insurer was in breach of the duty of utmost good faith in relying upon the allocation clause and whether the applicants were entitled to damages for breach. The Federal Court held that the respondent insurer was liable to pay the whole of the costs of the defence until further order and that the allocation clause was not engaged. The Court refused to make the requested order for indemnity for liability and rejected the utmost good faith and damages claims.
This case involved an application for certain declaratory relief to the effect that claims made in particular class action proceedings were “Securities Claims” within the meaning of a particular Directors and Officers Insurance Policy and that certain Endorsements within that Policy did not apply to those claims. The particular insurance policy contained side C cover. The claim for indemnity arose in the context where settlement sums had been paid to settle two class actions where alleged contraventions of continuous disclosure provisions had been made in circumstances where units in a listed unit trust had been issued pursuant to a product disclosure statement and subsequently on-market. The meaning and scope of the expression, “arising out of, based upon, attributable to” was examined as was a “professional services” exclusion in the policy.
This matter involved a dispute over industrial land. Relevantly, the matter involved an application for a declaration that particular rights under an Agreement had been assigned to the plaintiff and, alternatively, that the Agreement was an equitable lease. Declaratory relief was also sought that the plaintiff may enforce the first and second defendants’ obligations under the Agreement and that the second defendant was obligated to execute a lease. Orders for specific performance were also sought and, in the alternative, damages.
This matter involved an application under section 57 of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) and sections 232, 233, 237, 247A, 290, 461 and 1323 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). It also involved an application for declaratory relief concerning the enforceability of a settlement agreement as well as specific performance of that agreement.
This matter involved claims for declaratory relief and damages concerning alleged rights set out in a large commercial option agreement. It involved a number of interlocutory applications.
These proceedings involved claims for declarations and damages as well as orders for specific performance of various agreements which facilitated parties to mine iron ore in Western Australia. Claims were made that there was been a failure by the defendants to pay royalties in accordance with the relevant agreements. In addition, claims were made for restitution and rectification. The matter also involved a number of interlocutory applications. Further details of this matter are set out on this website under the following Practice Areas, Contract Law; Equity and Trusts – Restitutionary claims; Equity and Trusts – Specific Performance; and, Practice and Procedure.
