*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
The latest issue of the\u00c2\u00a0Australian Law Journal<\/em> (Volume\u00c2\u00a088 Part 6) contains the following material:<\/p>\n Foss v Harbottle: Alive and well in the public sector?<\/i><\/b><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/b>Marco Bini<\/p>\n Fiduciary duties are long established legal concepts, particularly in the context of directors of companies and the company. Associated with these duties of company directors is the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153proper plaintiff\u00e2\u20ac\u009d rule espoused in Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461 which stated that only the company had standing to take actions for wrongs done to it. The rule was eventually weakened by judicial discovery of exceptions and finally removed by statute in Australia. In the public sector however, there is less precedent surrounding directors of public entities and whether their duties are also fiduciary in relation to their public entity. Similarly, if the duties are fiduciary then does the proper plaintiff rule still apply? This article explores whether directors of public entities owe fiduciary duties to the entity similarly to company directors and whether the proper plaintiff rule might still apply to parties wishing to bring a suit against a director in breach. The article considers the operation of the Public Administration Act 2004 (Vic) in this area and concludes that directors of public entities likely owe fiduciary duties to the entity and that the rule in Foss v Harbottle likely still applies to parties seeking to bring a suit against a director in breach. This article reproduces part (with modifications as necessary) of a Ph D dissertation in law to be submitted by the author for examination in 2014.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n Limiting the nature and scope of a beneficiary\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s entitlement to receive trust information<\/i><\/b><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/b>Elizabeth Bishop<\/p>\n Despite Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd [2003] 3 All ER 76, in Australia there remains conflicting judicial approaches to the task of determining whether a beneficiary has a right or entitlement to access trust documents and information about the trust. As a means to alleviate the uncertainty and in an attempt to regulate what a beneficiary can access, the use of information control mechanisms in trusts deeds are being employed. This article addresses the conflicting foundational theories and, in light of Re A Trust [2013] SC (Bda) 16 Civ; [2013] BMSC 14, considers whether information control mechanisms effectively limit the nature and scope of a beneficiary\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s entitlement to trust information.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n The rise of the information barrier: Managing potential legal conflicts within commercial law firms<\/i><\/b><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/b>Ian Dallen<\/p>\n The size of commercial law firms operating in Australia, coupled with increased partner movement between those firms, means that robust and effective practice management has become critical for the identification, avoidance and management of conflicts. This article analyses the use of information barriers (traditionally referred to as \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Chinese walls\u00e2\u20ac\u009d) as a way of managing this risk and, in particular, considers the circumstances in which information barriers are commonly used by commercial law firms, namely: acting for multiple clients in the same, or related, matter; and acting against former clients; and how the courts have viewed the use of information barriers in these scenarios in the context of a lawyer\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s professional responsibilities and duties.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n CURRENT ISSUES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Acting Justice Peter W Young AO<\/b><\/p>\n LETTER TO THE EDITOR<\/b><\/a><\/p>\n CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Peter Butt<\/b><\/p>\n AROUND THE NATION: VICTORIA<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Justice Clyde Croft<\/b><\/p>\n CONSTITUTIONAL LAW<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Anne Twomey<\/b><\/p>\n CRIME AND EVIDENCE<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Justice Phillip Priest<\/b><\/p>\n ENVIRONMENTAL LAW<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Justice Rachel Pepper<\/b><\/p>\n COMPETITION AND CONSUMER LAW<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Robert Baxt AO<\/b><\/p>\n RECENT CASES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Acting Justice Peter W Young AO<\/b><\/p>\n BOOK REVIEWS<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Angelina Gomez<\/b><\/p>\n For the pdf version of the table of contents, click here: WAU – ALJ Vol 88 Pt 6 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\nArticles<\/h3>\n
Sections<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n