Where there has been a breach of contract, the innocent party can sue for damages including, where relevant, damages for the lost opportunity under the contract. In Principal Properties Pty Ltd v Brisbane Broncos Leagues Club Limited [2017] QCA 254, the Queensland Court of Appeal has considered a scenario where the opportunity to earn a profit under the contract was affected by various contingencies and where there might ultimately have been a loss instead. The Court has addressed the question of law, namely, whether an innocent party to a breach of contract can suffer a compensable loss even where, had the contract proceeded, that party might have lost money.

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.

Disputes regarding retail tenancies are typically the exclusive province of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court of Victoria in the recent case of AMJE Pty Ltd v Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd [2016] VSC 777 held that the Court possesses jurisdiction in circumstances where, turning on a point of statutory interpretation, the plaintiff had made a claim that was not in fact a ‘retail tenancy dispute’ in the strict sense.

The question of whether a price for something includes or excludes GST is an issue that arises in contracts from time to time. Such was the dispute between the parties in A & A Property Developers Pty Ltd v MCCA Asset Management Ltd [2016] VSC 653.

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 recent Victorian Supreme Court decision in Yuksels Nominees Pty Ltd v Nguyen & Anor [2015] VSC 663 provides some useful guidance about the removal of caveats under the Transfer of Land Act 1958. The case also considers the relevance of other court proceedings instigated by the caveator and whether an application to remove the caveat might in such a situation be 'vexatious'.