When applying to set aside a statutory demand, one of the ways to do so is to show the existence of a ‘genuine offsetting claim’. The recent Federal Court decision in Gucce Holdings Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland Limited [2017] FCA 12 illustrates a set-aside application made on such grounds, and is worth noting for the interface it has with the law of evidence and parties’ procedural obligations.

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 has recently refused to grant an interlocutory injunction that would have had the effect of requiring specific performance of a contract. In addition to giving persuasive reasons for doing so, the decision in Hera Project Pty Ltd v Bisognin & Anor [2016] VSC 591 more broadly represents a useful illustration of the principles to be applied when considering an application for an injunction.

The Federal Court has recently considered an appeal relating to the circumstances in which a court of bankruptcy can and should 'go behind' a judgment made against a debtor in order to ascertain whether a party facing bankruptcy in fact owes a debt being pursued.

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 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'.

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.