Property Settlement Rights of the Non-Bankrupt Spouse

/0 Comments/in /by

One area of Family Law that is little-understood is settlement of property when one of one spouses or de facto partners has become bankrupt.. If your spouse or de facto partner is in this predicament, it does not always follow that third-party creditors will get all of the bankrupt’s assets.

The court needs to balance the competing interests of the non-bankrupt spouse against the interests of the bankrupt’s creditors.

In the event of bankruptcy, it is still the case that the non-bankrupt spouse can make a claim for an equitable division of the assets of the relationship.

Administrators vs Adjudicators

/0 Comments/in /by

Administrators vs Adjudicators

How does an administration impact on debts due under security of payment legislation?

A recent NSW Supreme Court decision is a reminder that the “moratorium” philosophy for companies in administration will usually be given precedence over enforcement action by creditors, including those creditors seeking to avail themselves of rights under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (and by extension, equivalent legislation in other jurisdictions).

Building compliance new requirements

/0 Comments/in /by

Building Compliance: New Requirements

From that date, new buildings will require the installation of fixed or lockable devices or strong screens on windows located more than two metres from ground level. The proposed fixed or lockable devices will allow a window to only open 12.5 centimetres, preventing a child from climbing through. Any proposed screen must be of “sufficient strength”, however there is no guideline as yet as to what strength is sufficient.

It is important to note that the installation of lockable devices or strong screens on windows is NOT required for existing buildings. The NCC applies to new constructions only. Owners Corporations are not required to retrofit their windows.

The Duty to Cooperate in Resolving Personal Injury Claims

/0 Comments/in /by

Give and Take: The Duty to Cooperate in Resolving Personal Injury Claims

The decision in Cameron v RACQ Insurance Limited [2013] QSC 124 is a useful reminder that the broad general duty upon claimants and insurers to cooperate with one another is not always confined to the particular matters stated in the legislation.

This case considered a provision in the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) (MAIA). However, the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) contains comparable provisions which could be similarly interpreted by a court.

Implications

In this decision, the Court emphasised the need for insurers and claimants to comply with their overarching duty to cooperate with one another in resolving personal injuries claims, and indicated that this duty may extend beyond disclosure of the specific information/documentation referred to in the legislation.