As a general rule, a beneficiary of an unconditional undertaking is entitled to convert the security into cash, unless to do so would be fraudulent, unconscionable, or in breach of a clear term of the contract restricting that ability.  It requires ‘clear words’ to inhibit a beneficiary from calling on a performance guarantee where a breach is alleged in good faith i.e. non-fraudulently.

The Personal Property Securities Act world was almost turned on its head by Justice Brereton’s decision In the matter of OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Limited (administrators appointed) [2017] NSWSC 21 but not for the reason you might think.

Is there such a thing as divine intervention?  A decision by the Supreme Court of New South Wales in South Head & District Synagogue (Sydney) (Administrators Appointed) (South Head) provides an interesting insight into the approach taken by courts when faced with the task of interpreting contracts founded on religious law.

There is a general principle adopted by the Courts and judiciary that there should be finality in any litigation, this means that there comes a point when the Courts will not allow parties to re-ventilate the issues. It normally follows a contested final hearing or any appeal of that decision.