Blog

For many Australian businesses, LinkedIn has become an integral part of making connections and doing business, especially when it comes to finding and building relationships with clients and new leads. But as our reliance on this platform increases, so does the need for clear policies about who owns these connections and how they are used. Some employers are finding — all to late — the dangers of not having clear expectations spelled out in the employment contract and policy documents could mean former employees leave with valuable customer information.

In most disputes a letter of demand is the first letter you receive and it sets out the allegations against you. It is typically followed by a “Without Prejudice – Save as to Costs” letter which sets out the compromise the other side it willing to offer, and it is also sometimes called a Calderbank Offer.

When purchasing a newly constructed home or strata property from a developer, there are many advantages. These purchases are not without their risks. Because many of these properties are sold before the developer has subdivided the land into individual lots, they require the use of an off-the-plan type contract.

Employers who use poorly drafted employment contracts (perhaps contracts downloaded from the Internet) take significant business risks especially when they terminate an employee under such agreements.

When a 3rd party to a contract “jumps out of the woodwork” and says the debt is “now owed to me” complications can arise. For instance there may be issues about whether the assignment of the debt was valid

When Angas executed a deed of release with its insurer, by which it was to receive $597,627 in respect of a claim for insurance cover regarding a default by a mortgagee, it probably never really turned its mind to how Cl 4(e) would operate to bite it later on.

In Kazacos v Shuangling International Development Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1504 the Supreme Court found a term in a contract for the sale of land, in a lawsuit between a vendor and purchaser, described as being part of the deposit to in fact not be a deposit, and then went on to find it a penalty and in so doing made it void.

Taking a case to court can be a complicated, costly and time-consuming process. That’s why when it comes to civil disputes, it is often worth the effort to try and reach an agreement / settlement outside the courtroom since that is often the most efficient and economical solution. Yet there are times when a matter cannot be settled and moving forward with legal proceedings is the only option. So when you start the litigation process — either as the plaintiff or defendant — what can you expect?

In DP World Sydney Ltd v Guy [2016] NSWSC 1072 an employer sought to stop an employee, by interlocutory injunction, from working for a competitor on the basis of a restraint in an employment contract. There was no dispute that unless he was restrained from doing so then Mr Guy would take up employment with Asciano Executive Services Pty Ltd, as a Terminal Manager, and in competition with DP World Sydney. Whilst other restraints were sought regarding solicitation of customers, employees and disclosing confidential information the main issue was the restraint about working for Asciano.

It’s a familiar scenario. In need of a seemingly simple contract you turn to the Internet for information. A quick Google search reveals numerous low-cost options, making it difficult to justify the time and expense of hiring a lawyer. So you make the fateful decision to draft the document yourself, using one of those downloadable contract templates. What could possibly go wrong?