Perhaps just as significant as the decision to commence a proceeding is the decision to discontinue it. While the discontinuing party may be liable to pay the other side’s costs, the matter is at the court’s discretion. The recent decision Supreme Court decision in Course v Hannan & Ors [2018] VSC 401 demonstrates some of the factors a court can consider when determining the question of costs of a discontinued proceeding.

An administrator appointed over a company is entitled to payment of his or her remuneration, expenses and costs incurred in carrying out the role. To that end, an administrator can be indemnified out of the company’s property and can hold a lien over that property to secure the indemnity if the company is subsequently wound up.

The Supreme Court has recently ruled on two questions arising from such a scenario: does the lien extend to all the company’s property, or only that which the administrator caused the company to hold? And where does the administrator’s indemnity rank with the company’s other debts?

The rules of most Victorian courts permit a party, in certain circumstances, to obtain discovery of material prior to commencing proceedings. This is especially vital in assisting a party to ascertain who, or by what cause of action, it can sue. Like many rule-based tests, there can be some confusion about the requirements, as well as the discretionary factors, for obtaining preliminary discovery. The Supreme Court in a recent appeal decision in Alex Fraser Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning [2018] VSC 391 has shed some light.

Legal professional privilege provides vital protection to communications passing between lawyer and client. It is no surprise, then, that the issue of waiver of privilege is often hotly contested. In a recent decision, the Victorian Court of Appeal considered whether the way a party had pleaded its case had resulted in an implied waiver of privilege. The Court’s decision provides a useful analysis of the law relating to waiver and the potential circumstances in which a pleading can give things away.

Where a party seeks to rely on another’s repudiation of a contract as a basis for suing, that party must show it has been ready, willing and able to comply with the contract. Matters can be complicated where the parties clearly disagree about how to interpret and comply with the contract, and even more so where the contract expressly requires the parties to use their best endeavours to see the contract fulfilled. The Court of Appeal in its recent decision in Bisognin v Hera Project Pty Ltd [2018] VSCA 93 has tackled these kinds of issues.

A caveator of land, when notified by the Registrar of Titles of the pending registration of an interest or transfer of the land, can seek a court order that such registration be delayed for a period of time. But what if the caveat itself is defective and cannot be fixed? The Supreme Court in TL Rentals Pty Ltd v Youth on Call Pty Ltd [2018] VSC 105 has recently clarified the law regarding the ability of the caveator to instead seek an injunction in such circumstances.

Where there has been a breach of contract, in what circumstances can the innocent party sue for damages for distress, anxiety and depression arising from the breach? What about the inconvenience caused by the breach? The Court of Appeal in the recent case of Archibald v Powlett [2017] VSCA 259 sheds some light on these issues.

Where seeking to recover land on the basis of a constructive trust arising from proprietary estoppel, when does that constructive trust arise? Does it arise when a court makes a declaration to its effect, or when the relevant cause of action accrues? And should the court consider a lesser remedy instead of declaring a trust? The Court of Appeal in McNab v Graham [2017] VSCA 352 answers those questions.

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.

It is elementary to the law of contract that a binding contract requires an offer and acceptance of that offer by the respective parties. In the recent decision in Queensland Phosphate Pty Ltd v Korda [2017] VSCA 269, the task for the Court of Appeal was to determine whether, on the facts, such qualities existed in light of an exchange of emails. The Court’s decision serves as a reminder of the importance, when seeking to create a binding contract through informal means, of not leaving too much to guess-work.

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.