Corporations Law The Scallop Fishing

Question: Describe about the Corporations Law for The Scallop Fishing. Answer: 1. The Scallop fishing is restricted to certain regions of AFZ and also it is restricted by quantity and as per the rights granted under AFMA guidelines as framed. The Scallop Fishing and Marketing Act govern the Scallop fishing and marketing in Australia and under strict quota system which is also under control of Scallop Marketing Authority. The Scallop fishing or rather any fishing is managed by AFMA or Australian Fisheries Management Authority which is restricted to AFZ or Australian Fishing Zone and it is limited to 200 nautical miles limit. The Offshore Constitutional Settlement or OCS is made between the states and federal government to manage the fishing control. The above case is to be also guided by the AFZ or OCS or AFMA laid guidelines in the Fisheries Management Act, 1991 where it is laid down those rights are granted to each and every fisherman or even a fishing company (Afma, 2016). These rights are related to fishing of a particular fish type allowed, daily or yearly quota or quantity fixed, type of boats to used, types of equipments to be used, whether it should be directly or through any representative, if type of boat is not known then it should be later notified to AFMA and the rights are granted in the form of a permit which is also mandatory to do any type of fishing within the AFZ locations and as specified. Section 32 says about the permits and its issuance. The permit also mentions certain guidelines under section 41A to do business rightly. The rights may also given by the usage of tender or by special auction called by the AFMA to give special rights where any person is having more capacity to make harvest as specified by AFMA in the auction. These are hence special rights granted and they are very rare and not given in normal course of the system (Wa, 2016). The capacity of Bob was more than 50 tonnes of Scallops in a year but he cannot make more harvest in the presence of such restrictions as mentioned under the AFMA which is also governed by OCS. His daughter Alice has advised him to form a company and make more harvest but it will not be the right process in doing fishing business as per anyones will. But the rights are needed can be only granted by AFMA. Special rights grant can be given by the AFMA is possible if only AFMA thinks it fit on receiving application from persons interested to take rights in multiple fishing and in multiple locations and more than the quota. The fishing of restricted items is to be done with clear permit where the exact item and quota on yearly basis is mentioned. On making application of the prescribed form to AFMA the new right can be granted to all interested persons to take up fisheries in the AFZ regions. The Scallop fishing is restricted as this is a very expensive fishing product which is mostly sold in Asian market through Hongkong and European market. Hence the restrictions are imposed to control unauthorised fishing by anyone to make more profits which are not permitted by AFMA. All fishing companies are also governed by The Fisheries Management Act, 1991 and are to function through permits issued by AFMA on the basis of the written application in the prescribed form for grant of rights. Therefore the idea of making company is not correct but the special right or auction may be the right way to do more business. Hence to get more business rights the written applications must be given to the AFMA for allowing special rights for increase of quota in the years and also to increase the type of fishing items in the rights and permits granted thereon. The permit and rights of the Scallops fishing given by the AFMA for AFZ is very much the systematic approach of the Australian government so that the fishing business can be grown with perfection and with right pace. Hence the system of auction is also made to give the right to those who have more capacity to do more business or have intention to make more out of the benefit provided by AFMA (Dpipwe, 2016). 2. The New Nirvana Ltd, a company owned by a few members of rock brand have floated a few wholly owned subsidiaries that do the concert setting job. One of such subsidiaries is Nuclear Blast Sounds Pty Ltd who is responsible for setting up sound equipments in Australia. The wholly owned subsidiaries are the parent companies arm or it can be said that these subsidiaries are formed with a purpose to make the business more profitable and better controlled as the job area gets segregated into these wholly owned subsidiaries. In recent times the Nuclear Blast Sounds Pty Ltd has organised the sound systems for a concert of the rock band at Sydney where the sound level was kept very high and above the permissible limits with negligence and due to which the hearing problem occurred to five audiences who were taking part in the concert. These five audiences was critically injured in their ears and had the permanent loss of hearing capacity and due to this they blamed the Nuclear Blast Sounds Pty Ltd and have claimed for compensation for the damages caused by their negligence. The subsidiary did not had negligence insurance and therefore it was unable to make the damages claim right for the five audiences who lost their hearing capacity due to the negligent use of the high level of the sound system. The law says that the holding company of any wholly subsidiary companies are also responsible of the controlling these subsidiaries and therefore the negligence of any wholly owned subsidiaries done are or become an indirect responsibility of the parent company. The misdoings are also an indirect part of the holding company. Hence in this case also the sound level placing at a very high level and the loss of hearing by five audiences are an indirect job of the New Nirvana Ltd. Hence the negligence insurance claim by these five audiences were made to New Nirvana Ltd. were justified but the lack of negligence insurance by Nuclear Blast Sounds Pty Ltd. did not able to make the damages claim. Hence the five audiences now placed the claims of damages to the New Nirvana Ltd and it becomes the sole responsibility to make good the damages of the five audiences as the sound level should have been kept as per the given or set guidelines and when their subsidiary was both negligent in not maintaining the sound level and also not to have the negligence insurance. Hence the New Nirvana is bound to make the damages by either making direct settlement or by usage of any insurance of any type which is related to such problem which may be related to hearing loss. And it also shows that the company as well as its subsidiar y should have taken the insurance which is or may have saved the damages claim through the insurance policy taken. The damages should be made by the New Nirvana Ltd as there is no other way legally. The legal bindings of the holding company over its all subsidiaries are very clearly mentioned although the subsidiaries act as separate persons or entity but in case of any mistakes by such companies the holding companies also get into the legal tangle as per the subsidiary and holding companies legal bindings involved and responsibilities towards society and also towards government. It shows also that the legal side of all types must be studied in doing any business where insurance plays an important part in the case of making any damages right. In the absence of insurance the loss due to damages can highly affect the profitability of the business and also it must be seen that such legality of rules must be maintained (Murphy, 1998). 3. Simon, Don and Michael started a project management company called Millennium Pty Ltd. where Don was a solicitor and he was appointed by both Simon and Michael as the Solicitor of the new formation. The companys constitution also mentioned that he will act in case of any land was to be purchased. After a few years passed of the new business both Simon and Michael came across another solicitor who as per their view is more efficient than Don and appoints him. On this Don started a legal action although he is a part of the company but in the constitution it was mentioned that any dispute between the company and its partners must be first referred to an arbitrator before moving to court. But here the arbitrator was not consulted by Don but he imposed legal proceedings against the company along with Simon and Michael which is practically in violation to the agreement done by all three at the time of starting the company. The company hence can and should defend the case by placing of the legal guidelines as per the companys constitution which clearly says that a dispute can be resolved by calling on an arbitrator who can understand the dispute and make necessary mediation first instead of any legal actions or any court proceedings hence the legal action taken by Don is not right and as per the legal guidelines laid in the constitution of the company formed (Lawsocietysa, 2016). The constitution is a legal documents also and if Don is violating the points or clauses mentioned there then he is first doing something illegal himself by initiating legal process. In this process of initiating legal action against the company he is also doing a legal process against him as well as he is also a partner of the company although besides he was appointed by Simon and Michael as solicitor in case of land purchase by the company. Hence the change of solicitor is not a very big deal in Australia as per their eligibility is concerned and is also needed to justify the legality of the decision taken by Don. The legal action will be and can be countered by both Simon and Michael on the ground that the arbitrator should have been consulted before any legal action as these violated the existing position already accepted and formed in the constitution. The legal guidelines as per the provisions of Legal Practitioners (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act, 2013 laid that how a solicitor will act and what types of ethics they will follow, hence being a solicitor himself Don must not violate the said ethics and rules laid down (Austlii, 2016). References: Afma, 2016. Fishing rights permits. [Online] www.afma.gov.au Available at: https://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries-services/fishing-rights-permits/ [Accessed 10 October 2016]. Austlii, 2016. LEGAL PROFESSION UNIFORM LAW AUSTRALIAN SOLICITORS' CONDUCT RULES 2015. [Online] www.austlii.edu.au Available at: https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/lpulascr2015658/ [Accessed 20 October 2016]. Dpipwe, 2016. Legislation and Management Plans. [Online] dpipwe.tas.gov.au Available at: https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/sea-fishing-aquaculture/sustainable-fisheries-management/legislation-and-management [Accessed 20 October 2016]. Fish.wa.gov.au, 2016. Scallop commercial fishing. [Online] www.fish.wa.gov.au Available at: https://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Species/Scallop/Pages/Scallop-Commercial-Fishing.aspx [Accessed 20 October 2016]. Lawsocietysa, 2016. Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules. [Online] www.lawsocietysa.asn.au Available at: https://www.lawsocietysa.asn.au/PDF/rules_of_professional_conduct.pdf [Accessed 20 October 2016]. Murphy, D., 1998. Holding Company Liability for Debts of its Subsidiaries: Corporate Governance Implications. [Online] epublications.bond.edu.au Available at: https://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1148context=blr [Accessed 20 October 2016].