Nicholas Bentley's teaching and research areas include Corporate & Securities Law, Evidence & Criminal Procedure, Civil Procedure and Private International Law.
Nicholas previously worked as a Tipstaff (Judicial Associate) in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, a Research Associate at the UTS Business School, and as a Lawyer at HWL Ebsworth and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP.
Nicholas studied Law and Business at the University of Technology Sydney and also holds a Masters in Law and Finance (MLF) from the University of Oxford. While at Oxford, Nicholas was Editor of the Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal (OUCLJ).
- Civil and criminal procedure in Australian courts.
- Corporate & Securities Law.
- Evidence Law.
- Private International Law / Conflict of Laws.
- The public and private enforcement of law.
- Applied Company Law.
- Australian Private International Law.
- Civil Practice.
- Contemporary Business Law.
- Corporate Law.
- Evidence and Criminal Procedure.
- Securities Regulation.
Leung, L.T. & Bentley, N. 2017, 'Producing Leisured Laborers: developing higher education courses for the digital creative industries', The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, pp. 1-13.View/Download from: UTS OPUS or Publisher's site
This article attempts to detail the range of assumptions and challenges in designing an undergraduate university degree in digital creative industries. Leaders in digital industries, who bemoan the general skills shortage and lack of 'industry-ready graduates, have identified the need for post-secondary education in this area. But in developing these new courses, how do we reconcile the traditional reflective, critical modes of academic practice with the fast and dynamic pace of the dot.com industries? How can slower-paced higher education and lifelong learning be meaningful to the current and future generations of digital natives who thrive on 'just-in-time knowledge? These important issues are analyzed and built upon to showcase the unique qualities and opportunities associated with tertiary education in this area. Overall, the article develops these high-level considerations practically by applying them to a pioneering undergraduate course in Australia that was launched in 2014.
Tension has long existed between common law and equity over whether certain moneys sought as a result of a contractual breach should be constituted as a penalty. Recently, this ongoing debate has had significant consequences for parties in conveyancing matters where deposits are paid via instalments. Previous case law reveals some courts confirming the status of secondary payments as deposits, with others declaring them to be unenforceable penalties. Associate Justice Harrison's recent judgment in Rana v Dalla Costa has to an extent clarified how the courts will determine the status of a deposit paid via instalments. In light of the decision, this article revisits the leading authorities and fundamental principles in an effort to elucidate the current standing of the law.
Bentley, N. 2016, 'War on two fronts: Harmonising the public and private enforcement of Australia's corporate disclosure laws', Company and Securities Law Journal, vol. 34, pp. 567-598.View/Download from: UTS OPUS
With the increasing prevalence of shareholder class actions, private litigants have assumed a greater role in enforcing Australia's market disclosure laws against listed entities. In some cases, this has challenged the traditionally exclusive public enforcement role of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), creating scope for overlaps and conflicts between the public and private enforcement of Australia's market disclosure laws. Such conflicts have led to costly and ultimately counter-productive litigation, particularly over access to information obtained from listed entities. This article discusses possible law and policy reforms to more effectively coordinate disclosure law enforcement. Suggested reforms include ASIC providing regulatory guidance on its approach to interacting with proponents of shareholder class actions, requirements for class action proponents to consult with and report evidence of serious misconduct to ASIC, and possible amendments to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) to facilitate enforcement cooperation. The article concludes that serious consideration should be given to these reforms, particularly when noting ASIC's well recognised resource constraints.