No vaccine against natural justice: Gautham v Panwar [2021] VSC 157

The decision in Gautham v Panwar provides guidance as to the application of temporary measures put in place under the COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) Act 2020 (Omnibus Act) in the context of residential tenancy disputes.

What a relief! VCAT takes a broad view of COVID-19 rent relief requirements: R & D Health Clubs v Lin Wang

In R & D Health Clubs Pty Ltd v Lin Wang Pty Ltd (Building and Property) [2021] VCAT 349, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal (VCAT) considered whether a tenant’s initial request for rent relief can be carried over to subsequent periods or whether a fresh application must be made. VCAT also considered whether COVID-19 rent relief payments are to be included within the definition of ‘outgoings’.

Recognition of Two MST Lawyers Principals in 2022 edition of Best Lawyers™ in Australia

MST Lawyers is delighted to announce that two Principals in our firm, Alicia Hill and Raynia Theodore, have been recognised in the 2022 edition of Best Lawyers™ in Australia.

Case Note: LCM Operations Pty Ltd, in the matter of 316 Group Pty Ltd

In LCM Operations Pty Ltd, in the matter of 316 Group Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2021] FCA 324, the Federal Court of Australia provided guidance as to when the Harmon undertaking is not applicable. This case clarified the purposes for which a party to proceedings is permitted to use documents produced in another proceeding, and when leave is not required to do so. More specifically, clarification is provided as to when the Harman undertaking is not operative.