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.

A person may apply to a court for an injunction in order to prevent threatened or actual and ongoing infringement of that person’s legal rights. When hearing an application for an injunction, most courts have jurisdiction to award damages instead of, or together with, an injunction. The Queensland Supreme Court has recently provided some guidance regarding the circumstances in which a court might do so.

Shareholder oppression cases require a careful consideration of the circumstances in which the complaining shareholder has brought its claim. This is true in the context of closely-held, family-run businesses. The recent Victorian Supreme Court case of Peter Exton & Anor v Extons Pty Ltd & Ors [2017] VSC 14 illustrates such a scenario, and the Court’s decision is noteworthy for its exploration of a number of important factors in shareholder oppression cases.

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.