ByLawyers News and Updates

McKenzie Friend – A friend in need

by

A McKenzie Friend (MF) is someone who assists an unrepresented person in court. They can be a lawyer, but they are not a substitute for a lawyer. So lawyer or not, when acting as a MF they may not address the court; they can take notes, organise papers, whisper quietly to and generally assist the litigant. McKenzie v McKenzie (1970) 3 W.L.R 472 was a family law case and MFs are more common in family and guardianship matters, but they may be permitted in any court where an unrepresented person needs assistance to ensure fairness. However, some MFs are overbearing do-gooders, or bush lawyers, who cause disruption and delay rather than actually assist and will not be permitted to remain. In guardianship hearings where there is no right of representation, a lawyer can act as a MF.

New Partnerships Guide

by

Within the must have commercial publication Companies, Trusts, Partnerships and Superannuation we have created a new guide, commentary and precedents focusing extensively on the topic of Partnerships.

Partnerships covers all aspects of setting up and running a business using partnership trading structures including:

  • general partnerships;
  • limited partnerships; and
  • incorporated limited partnerships.

The commentary, guide and precedents provide an end to end solution for partnership businesses such as:

  • establishing a new partnership and the partnership agreement;
  • adding new partners or making changes to profit share structure of an existing partnership;
  • removing or expelling a partner; and
  • dissolving a partnership and business succession arrangements.

The commentary also discusses the taxation and property ownership implications of operating under a partnership structure.

The Companies, Trusts, Partnerships and Superannuation guides also provides detailed information about other business structures including companies, trusts and self-managed superannuation funds.

Motor Vehicle Accidents NSW – Post 1 December 2017 amendments

by

The Motor Vehicle Accidents NSW Publication has been amended in relation to the new regime brought in by the the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 which commenced in full on 1 December 2017 and applies to all motor vehicle accidents occurring after that date. The Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 continues to apply to accidents prior to that date and there are accordingly two separate regimes operating for at least three years.

This comprehensive and easy to follow publication helps practitioners to navigate the convoluted and restrictive legislation which applies to motor accident claims in NSW. There are two separate Guides – one for accidents which occurred prior to 1 December 2017 and another for accidents occurring on or after 1 December 2017. Each Guide contains commentary, precedents and forms specific to the relevant statutory regime.

The new Guide is available to all LEAP cloud users and via subscription to the ByLawyers website.

Estates NSW – Transfer of dutiable property

by

The commentary now deals with the duty payable on the transfer of dutiable property from the executor/administrator to a beneficiary:

  • in accordance with the will or rules of intestacy; and
  • where there is an agreement  to vary the trusts in the will of a deceased or arising on intestacy.

A NSW Revenue example has been added to the commentary to illustrate when property is dutiable where there has been a variation of entitlement under a will.

VIC – Estates – Effect of marriage and divorce on will beneficiaries

by

Our commentary on the effects of marriage and divorce on wills has been added to. While a will is revoked by the marriage of the testator a number of exceptions apply, as per s 13 of the Wills Act. The commentary on the impact of divorce on a will is also enriched.

FAMILY LAW – LETTERS OF ADVICE FOR BINDING CHILD SUPPORT AGREEMENTS

by

Detailed Letters of Advice for Binding Child Support Agreements have been added to the Children publication in Family Law with one for the “payee” and one for the “payer”. The letters explain Child Support Assessments and the meaning and effect of  Binding Child Support Agreements on the client’s rights. Each letter also lists the particular advantages and disadvantages of Binding Child Support Agreements for the “payee” and the “payer”. The “payee” letter explains the advantage of registering the agreement where there are non-periodic payments.

Locate these letters on the Children matter plan in Settling it Early in the Child Support folder.

NSW – Supreme Court – Equity Division and Common Law Division – Appeals – Practice Note SC CA 1

by

Information has been added to the Act for Plaintiff and Act for Defendant commentaries in both the Supreme Court Common Law and Equity Guides to incorporate the requirements of Practice Note No. SC CA 1  which was issued on 13 December 2017 and which commenced on 1 January 2018.

All parties to proceedings in the Court of Appeal are required to comply with the requirements contained in  Part 51 UCPR (appeals) and Part 59 UCPR ( judicial review).  The Practice Note makes additional  provision for the  preparation and conduct of proceedings in the Court of Appeal.

FAMILY LAW – BINDING CHILD SUPPORT AGREEMENTS

by

The Binding Child Support Agreements commentary has been updated with relevant case law.

Balzano & Balzano [2010] FamCAFC 11 at [40]-[41] and Gallup & Gallup [2009] FMCAfam 839 at [52]-[53] both demonstrate the extreme difficulty in having a binding child support agreement set aside.

Vendor’s duty to co-operate

by

By Russell Cocks, Solicitor

First published in the Law Institute Journal

Contracts often impose specific obligations on purchasers but these may be accompanied by implied obligations on vendors to co-operate with the purchaser to allow the purchaser to fulfil those obligations.

Contracts of sale of land often include conditions that require a purchaser to undertake some action that will put the purchaser in a position to complete the contract. Such conditions are known as ‘contingent conditions’ in that the purchaser does not promise that the condition will be satisfied but acknowledges that if the condition is satisfied, the contract will no longer be conditional on that condition being satisfied.

A common example is a finance condition whereby the contract is conditional (contingent) upon the purchaser obtaining finance to assist the purchaser to complete the contract, or at least to make application for such finance and notify the vendor of the outcome. The purchaser does not promise that finance will be obtained, but obtaining finance will mean that the contract will proceed. The failure of a contingent condition will generally give a right to terminate a contract.

Contingent conditions may be in contrasted to promissory conditions whereby one, or both, of the contracting parties promise to do something; such as to adjust outgoings, or provide documents, or settle the transaction in a particular way. Generally, the failure of a promissory condition will not give a right of termination unless the condition is essential, or goes to the root of the contract.

Conditions may be both contingent and promissory, as indeed is the finance condition in GC14 of the standard contract. The contract is contingent upon the purchaser obtaining finance, but the purchaser also promises to apply for finance and advise of the outcome of that application. If the purchaser fails to comply with the requirements of the condition, the contingency is deemed to have been satisfied and the contract proceeds unconditionally in respect of finance.

Such conditions specifically impose obligations on the purchaser but also impliedly impose obligations on the vendor. Grubb v Toomey [2003] TASSC 131 and Grieve v Enge [2006] QCA 213 are authority for the proposition that a vendor who agrees to a finance condition in a contract impliedly agrees to make the property available to the purchaser for the purpose of a valuation required by a prospective lender and that a vendor who fails to comply with this obligation will be in breach of contract.

Simcevski v Dixon [2017] VSC 197 concerned the sale of a commercial property that had previously been used as a petrol station and that the purchaser wished to redevelop. The purchaser required finance for the purchase and the financier required a valuation to include an assessment of the likely contamination of the site. However, the contract was not conditional upon finance so it was not open to the purchaser to argue that the implied obligation to make the land available for valuation extended to an obligation to allow investigations.

The purchaser sought to rely on a Special Condition in the contract that stated that the vendor gave no warranty in respect of contamination, that the purchaser had inspected the property and that the purchaser released the vendor from any liability in relation to contamination. The condition also referred to the purchaser conducting investigations in relation to contamination and the purchaser sought to argue that this created an express or implied obligation on the purchaser to conduct those investigations and a consequent implied obligation on the vendor to make the property available for the purpose of conducting those investigations.

In the context of the contract this seemed an ambitious argument, as the purpose of the Special Condition appeared to be to protect the vendor and the court concluded as much. Thus, the court held that the Special Condition did not create an express or implied obligation on the purchaser to conduct investigations. Whilst the court did recognise that a vendor does have an implied general duty to co-operate with the purchaser to allow the purchaser to gain the benefits anticipated to flow from the contract, that duty did not extend to making the property available for the proposed investigations in this case as the purchaser had no obligation to conduct those investigations.

A final argument of the purchaser was that the refusal by the vendor to allow the investigations to be conducted prevented the purchaser from completing the contract and that a vendor in such circumstances should not be entitled to terminate the contract, as to do so would allow the vendor to benefit from its wrongdoing. The court, whilst acknowledging the Prevention Principle, held that, on the facts of this case, the Principle did not apply.

Tip Box

Whilst written for Victoria this article has interest and relevance for practitioners in all states.

Connect with us