News and resources

Sendle Pty Ltd is a Sydney-based parcel delivery company that provides low-cost, door-to-door delivery, enabling customers to avoid physically attending a post office to send parcels.

As a start-up back in 2014, Sendle lodged an application to register the trade mark “Post without the office”.

In 2015, Australia Post filed a Notice of Intention to Oppose the registration, arguing that the phrase was a breach of the Trade Marks Act because it was deceptively similar to its own trade marks and likely to mislead consumers.

The matter came before the Australian Trade Marks Office for hearing in February 2017.

A case in the High Court in 2022 revolved around whether or not a complex loan arrangement amounted to unconscionable conduct and predatory lending.

Mr S owned two houses in suburban Melbourne, both of them mortgaged to the Commonwealth Bank.

Despite being unemployed, with no regular income, and having fallen behind on rates payments for his existing properties, Mr S decided to buy a rural property just outside Melbourne.

Mr S’s application for a home loan with ANZ was rejected. However, he was subsequently introduced by a consultant to a lawyer who acted as an agent for private lenders, who provided finance to those who were unable to get a loan from a bank.

The loan from the lenders was made to a company owned by Mr S. The company had no assets and had never traded. The loan was structured this way because the lender wanted to give the appearance that the loan was for business purposes, thereby avoiding the application of the National Credit Code.

Mr S acted as guarantor for the loan.

His guarantee was secured by mortgages over his two existing properties and the rural property he was buying.

A case heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia concerned a dispute between a landlord and a tenant of commercial premises in Perth over whether their email exchange constituted a binding contract.

The tenant had occupied the premises for six years and its lease was due to expire on 30 June 2009. In May 2009, the parties began negotiations for a new lease.

In October 2019, an 86-year-old man died, leaving behind three children and an estate valued at $368,805. 

The deceased had separated from the children’s mother in 2004 and she died in 2012.

For over a decade prior to the deceased’s death, he and his eldest child, B, were completely estranged. This followed B supporting her mother in the family law proceedings between her parents.

The deceased’s 2008 will bequeathed just $100 dollars to B and included a detailed explanation for this rejection.

The man’s will appointed B’s siblings, G and C, as executors of the estate and left the whole of that estate to them in equal shares, save for the $100 left to B.

The greenery in my neighbour’s yard keeps getting bigger and bigger – now there are trees blocking the sun from reaching my garden and patio. My flowers are suffering and I can’t enjoy sitting in the sun at home any more. On top of that, the neighbour’s hedge has grown so high it blocks the […]

“I was close to someone who died without leaving a valid will, which meant an administrator had to be appointed to handle the intestate estate. Through this process, the estate was passed to someone who I felt wasn’t deserving of it. I believe the deceased person would have wanted me included in the distribution of […]

If you find yourself in a position where you’re out of pocket because of someone else and the amount you’re owed is relatively small, it can be difficult to know what to do next. Whether it’s a debt someone hasn’t repaid (like a customer who won’t pay your bill), money you’ve had to outlay to […]

In a case study reported in 2016 by the UK Financial Ombudsman, an investor in the United Kingdom, “Ms Q”, had her emails hacked by fraudsters, who impersonated her and sent emails purporting to be from her to her financial adviser.

In 2003, a nineteen-year-old man began employment as a trainee accountant with a major accounting firm in Perth. He signed an employment contract that included a post-employment “restraint of trade” clause.

Restraint of trade clauses are often included by employers to protect their client relationships should an employee leave and start up work in competition.

However, clauses of this nature are not always easy to enforce because the law recognises that it is not in the public interest to restrict a person’s ability to earn a living or to restrict healthy competition between businesses. The onus to prove that a particular restraint clause is “reasonably necessary” to protect “legitimate business interests” therefore rests with the employer.