During insolvency proceedings, administrators will generally be entitled to draw renumeration for their work from the assets of the company. However, where a company operates as a trustee or interim receivers were appointed before the administrators, there may be issues relating to the availability of assets to be drawn on for renumeration. This is particularly the case where the company’s operations were legally problematic, as was the case in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Marco (No 9)  FCA 1306. In this case, the administrators sought to draw renumeration from assets which the interim receivers argued they, and only they, were entitled.
Refused the right to refund and replacement: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Mazda Australia Pty Ltd  FCA 1493
The case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Mazda Australia Pty Ltd  FCA 1493 (ACCC v Mazda Australia) concerned allegations made by the ACCC that Mazda had engaged in unconscionable conduct as well as misleading and deceptive conduct.
Competing over trademarked firm names: Henley Arch Pty Ltd v Henley Constructions Pty Ltd  FCA 1369
A simple ASIC search will establish a list of available business names within Australia – but does this necessarily mean you are all in the clear from potential trademarking issues? Henley Arch Pty Ltd v Henley Constructions Pty Ltd  FCA illustrates a case where a firm has knowingly acted in a way which resulted in a largely identical company name being registered and then objections were raised.
The recent issue between the Australian Government and Novak Djokovic has been no less than a game of tennis. The saga kept engaged not only the Australian tennis community but lawyers and the general public from across the globe. The dispute was full of surprising moves by the Australian Government and till the end, it was unclear who would win; would Djokovic be allowed to stay in Australia and defend his title or would he be deported from Australia.