When Set-Off Meets Fairness: Insights from Metal Manufactures v Morton
The High Court’s decision in Metal Manufactures v Morton closed the door on creditors using statutory set-off to shield unfair preference payments. This case note unpacks the Court’s reasoning, why the set-off argument failed, and what today’s businesses can learn from a judgment built around fairness, transparency, and the proper handling of money moving in both directions. It also shows how Clean Law’s escrow safeguards reflect the very principles the High Court reinforced.
Fairness in the Flow of Money: Lessons from Bryant v Badenoch
The High Court’s decision in Bryant v Badenoch reshaped the law of unfair preferences by rejecting the peak-indebtedness rule and reaffirming the deeper purpose of the running-account principle: to look at the relationship as a whole. This case note explains the judgment’s logic and why it matters for modern business relationships, especially where finances move back and forth in ways that can mask underlying vulnerabilities. It also shows how Clean Law’s escrow safeguards reflect the same fairness architecture the Court reinforced.
When Control Becomes Unfair: Lessons from Hillam v Ample Source
Hillam v Ample Source clarifies when courts will intervene in oppressive conduct and even wind up a solvent company. This short case note explains how “commercial unfairness” arises whenever one party holds disproportionate control — and why the same principle underpins Clean Law’s escrow safeguards, where client funds cannot move without their clear, informed approval.
When Power Meets Fairness: Lessons from Gambotto v WCP Ltd
Gambotto v WCP Ltd reshaped Australian company law by insisting on proper purpose and fairness before majority power can expropriate minority shares. This short case note explains why the judgment still matters for today’s executives — especially when decisions concentrate power or shift financial risk. Learn the modern business lesson: fairness is never optional.