Comments for Smokeball Australia's Blog

Comment on Recent decision by Victorian Court of Appeal may affect drafting of post-employment restraints by Dvdshed.Com

Dvdshed.Com — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 07:05:01 +0000

Its like you read my thoughts! You seem to grasp so much approximately this, such as you wrote the e-book in it or something.

I feel that you could do with a few p.c. to
drive the message home a little bit, however instead of that, that is
excellent blog. A great read. I’ll definitely be back.

Comment on Deposit Release – why take the risk? by Colin Rouch

Colin Rouch — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 02:27:41 +0000

This reveals just another risk for a purchaser under S27. In my view, the S 27 procedure should be abolished.The restriction on vendors enttilement to deposit monies was introduced as form of consumer protection to prevent purchasers suffering loss from vendors decamping with deposit funds and not being able to produce title. The half “pregnant” position under S27, which is more the norm than the exception in conveyancing is of no benefit or advantage to the practioners purchaser client. Either go back to the old system that a vendor is entitled to the deposit or the law should be clear that deposit monies are held safe until settlement. The current scheme whereby the vendor gets the deposit if she jumps through certain “hoops” places the solicitor for the purchaser in an intolerable position. There are risks in an early release which it is unlikely any lay person purchaser would appreciate or understand.To properly explain the risks adds to conveyancing costs to the purchaser for which they frankly receive no benefit. Any benefit is to the vendor but the purchaser’s solicitor assumes the risks. My current practice is to accept only limited instructions from purchasers that does not include accepting service of S27 Notices. If the vendors solicitor sends it to me I will return it. I have also previously suggested to vendors representatives that if they want me to deal with early release the vendor should pay the additional costs. However, I now prefer simply not to be involved.

Comment on Removal of Covenants by bylawyers

bylawyers — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 01:31:23 +0000

This identifies a ‘lost in translation’ event.

When I first started LIJ articles they had footnotes and (it doesn’t) had reference to cases that now appear in 1001 COVENANT Ch. under the heading of Covenants and Planning Permits.

Isles did say that a ‘no quarrying’ covenant did prevent a swimming pool but that approach was later doubted in the other cases referred to.

Russell Cocks

Comment on Merger of Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court – Family Law Divisions by Tassie

Tassie — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:53:11 +0000

Hi Peter
Can I check if the family law matters in the Federal Magistrates Court are heard by Magistrates who only handle family law matters or do they roster the Magistrates so that they take turns to hear family law cases as well as non-family law cases?
Your help with this question is much appreciated.

Cheers
Tassie

Comment on Removal of Covenants by Dana

Dana — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 00:31:14 +0000

How can I get more information about “This might be as simple as a client who wants to know whether a ‘no quarrying’ covenant prevents the construction of a swimming pool (it doesn’t )”. Is it really as simple as ‘it doesn’t'?

Comment on Writing a Will by James Norton

James Norton — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 06:33:53 +0000

Its true its important to have wills to secure the wealth that you have. We must made it so our family can benefit what we strive for our selves. Its time for them to enjoy leasure that we have!!!

Comment on What you need to know about the PPSA 2009 by Tom Murphy

Tom Murphy — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:16:59 +0000

Thanks for the short article Graham – to get an overview of this legislation from the point of view of a General Practicioner has been very difficult. I have attended some CLE seminars on the subject and ponder if those presenting the same really have much of an idea themselves.

Comment on Sheriff’s Sale by Leon

Leon — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 04:01:32 +0000

1. Why doesnt the Sheriff reduce the legal difficulties and risks for the buyer by
a. selling the unencumbered tittle
b. collect the full payment as per the usual settlement
c. pay the creditors out , as a liquidator would !

2a. Why did the Sheriff run the auction on December 16 ?

2b Why did the advertisement say that the amount bid has to be paid on the drop off the hammer.. effectively the bank cheque method of payment is thus impossible, and so a buyer would have to be a solicitor, or bring one with him, so he can write a cheque against his trust account !

3.. yes if Zhiping knew, he could have advertised the auction himself. you suggest Zhiping wasn’t informed of the details of the auction

4. Zhiping still owes the $100K To the 2nd creditor.. what did the Sheriff do here ??? stuff up real bad !

Comment on Caveats – Use Them! by John Keating

John Keating — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:37:42 +0000

In Queensland a Form 23 Settlement Notice is used. It is inexpensive (around $40) and through LEAP can be lodged electronically.

Comment on Occupancy and Insurance Certificates by lawyers melbourne

lawyers melbourne — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:39:27 +0000

Thank you for your blog, it is a timely discovery for me as I am doing a paper on this very subject actually, from the aspect of insurance certificates.
Thanks again