*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AST).
The latest issue of the The Queensland Lawyer (Volume 38 Part 3) contains the following material:
EDITORIAL – General Editor: Andrew M West
COMMERCIAL LAW – Editor: Dr Clive Turner
- Assessment of Damages for Loss of Use of a Non-profit Earning Chattel on Breach of a Contract for the Sale of Goods: Rider v Pix  QCA 182 – Clive Turner
CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY LAW – Editor: Dr Bill Dixon
- Musical Chairs and Good Faith Limitations upon Contractual Notice
CRIMINAL LAW – Editor: Andrew M West
- Climate Mayhem – A M West
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Editor: Dr Kristy Richardson
- Foreseeability of Risk: Deans v Maryborough Christian Education Foundation Ltd – Kristy Richardson
Management Rights Agreements for Body Corporates in Queensland: Must They Expire, or May They Be “Topped Up” Indefinitely? – Neil Samuel Hope, Dane Bryce Weber and Maija-Ilona Wilhelmiina Pekkanen
There is a natural desire on the part of the holders of caretaking agreements to keep those agreements alive for as long as possible to protect the value of the asset embodied in such agreements. Term limits with respect to such rights are determined by statute, however, without any definitive authority on the interpretation of the statutory provisions that apply, caretakers and body corporates alike appear to rely purely on “standard industry practice” to allow unlimited extensions to such agreements. While “standard industry practice” is not an authoritative source of law, there unfortunately exists no definitive authority as to the interpretation of those term limits to settle the tension. May caretaking agreements be extended indefinitely, or do they have a set expiration date, notwithstanding “standard industry practice” or contracts that might suggest otherwise?
Amendments to the Small Business Capital Gains Concessions – Francesco Maconi
The small business capital gains concessions contained in Div 152 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth), which are (1) the 15-year exemption, (2) the 50% active asset reduction, (3) the retirement exemption and (4) rollover relief, were designed to provide CGT relief for taxpayers who chose to dispose of an active asset in a small business. If a taxpayer wants to utilise the small business concessions, the taxpayer must satisfy certain conditions (the “access conditions”). The access conditions are complex and difficult to apply in practice. Under the most recent 2018 amendments introduced by the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Integrity and Other Measures) Act 2018 (Cth), the federal government has amended the third access condition, which applies when a taxpayer disposes of an interest in a company or trust. This article argues that the amendments are a missed opportunity to simplify access to the small business concessions, which has become more complex than ever before.
BOOK REVIEWS – Editor: Judge Brian Devereaux SC
- Australian Annotated Class Actions Legislation (2nd ed) – Michael Legg and Ross McInness reviewed by Holli Edwards
- Australian Anti-discrimination and Equal Opportunity Law (3rd ed) – Neil Rees, Simon Rice and Dominque Allen reviewed by Sebastian Campbell
- Blackshield and Williams Australian Constitutional Law and Theory: Commentary and Materials (7th ed) – George Williams, Sean Brennan and Andrew Lynch (eds) reviewed by Molly Thomas
- Law of Associations – GE Dal Pont reviewed by James Rigby
- Legal Usage: A Modern Style Guide – Peter Butt reviewed by Laura Kellermeier
- Water Resources Law (2nd ed) – Alex Gardner, Richard Bartlett, Janice Gray and Rebecca Nelson reviewed by Tessa Boardman
For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: Qld Lawyer Vol 38 No 3 Contents.
For general queries, please contact: email@example.com.