This week the High Court will hear argument in three appeals.
Commencing on Tuesday, 9 September 2014 the Court will hear an appeal from the Full Federal Court in Wellington Capital Limited v ASIC. This case addresses the relationship between provisions commonly found in the Constitution of managed investment schemes to the effect that the Responsible Entity has all powers legally possible for a corporation as if it were the absolute owner of the scheme property and acting in its personal capacity, conferring power to dispose of and deal with the scheme property as if it were the beneficial owner of the property, and the provisions of section 601FC of the Corporations Act 2001, which provides that a Responsible Entity holds scheme property on trust for the scheme members.
On Wednesday, 10 September 2014 the Court will hear an appeal from the NSW Court of Appeal in Gray v Richards. This case addresses an important question of the law of damages in personal injury cases. Where compensable injury to a plaintiff results in impairment of the plaintiff’s ability to manage the money awarded to the plaintiff in respect of the injury, the award of damages will commonly include a component for the cost of having a third party manage the fund of money on behalf of the plaintiff (so-called fund management expense). The questions that arise for consideration are: whether the award of damages should include an amount for the cost of managing the fund management expense itself; whether it should include an amount for the cost of managing income earned on the fund; and whether the amount of the fund upon which the fund management expense is to be calculated includes moneys that will be immediately paid out of the fund (such as, for example, that part of the damages awarded in respect of past medical expenses, or for the cost of purchasing a custom-built home catering for the plaintiff’s disabilities).
On Thursday, 11 September 2014 the Court will hear an appeal from the Full Federal Court in Commissioner of Taxation v MBI Properties Pty Ltd. This case raises a short question of statutory construction under the GST legislation, and in particular whether or not there is a supply to a lessee by the purchaser of the reversionary interest under the lease who continues to receive rent.