In Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd v Compton [2017] HCA 28, the High Court has affirmed the position that a court’s discretion to go behind a judgment is not restricted to situations of fraud, collusion or a miscarriage of justice occurring at trial. In doing so, the majority was mindful of the importance of protecting in bankruptcy proceedings the interests of third parties — particularly other creditors — who do not participate in the trial and who later seek to rely on the bona fides of a judgment debt when a sequestration order is made.

The Full Court of the Federal Court has recently clarified the law regarding the ability of a secured creditor of a bankrupt estate to commence proceedings against the bankrupt pursuant to the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). In Morris Finance Ltd v Brown [2017] FCAFC 516 the Full Court considered the provisions of the Act and held that, as an exception to the general rule that a creditor requires leave of a court to bring a claim for a provable debt against a bankrupt, proceedings to enforce an equitable charge do not require leave.

Where one has a purported deed or a ‘heads of agreement’ type of document, when might that document be binding and when might it fall short for lack of formality? The Victorian Court of Appeal in its recent decision in Nurisvan Investment Ltd & Anor v Anyoption Holdings Limited [2017] VSCA 141 has provided some guidance, and the decision is of note for the way in which it uses evidence of post-contractual conduct in ascertaining the identity of parties to an agreement.

The Full Court of the Federal Court has recently determined an appeal relating to an order for an account of profits and a finding of accessorial liability for the conduct giving rise to those profits. The decision in Lifeplan Australia Friendly Society Ltd v Ancient Order of Foresters in Victoria Friendly Society Limited [2017] FCAFC 74 is noteworthy for the way in which it enunciates and applies the principles relating to the remedy of an account of profits, and discusses the distinction, and whether there is a distinction at all, between the equitable and the statutory tests for accessorial liability.

The Victorian Supreme Court last week ruled on an appeal from a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal regarding the proper characterisation of an 'Airbnb' arrangement at property the subject of a residential tenancy.

The Court of Appeal in Australian Dream Homes Pty Ltd v Stojanovski [2016] VSCA 38 recently considered an application for security for costs. The Court’s decision provides some guidance for parties seeking to make such applications, highlighting in particular the importance of enquiring about the financial health of the opponent as well as the relevance of delay.

The Court of Appeal recently considered the effect of rescission and, in particular, its quality as an equitable remedy. The case of Gutnick v Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd [2016] VSCA 5 shows how a judicial declaration of rescission can help a party seeking restitution.

The Victorian Court of Appeal last week handed down its judgment in Doggett v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2015] VSCA 351, a case which bears significant implications for the lending industry and which helps to answer the question, 'What does it take to be a diligent and prudent banker?'.

The significance of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 and the role of legislative intent in determining its scope have been reiterated in a recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal.