Most Recent
There is a time for everything, as Ecclesiastes says, but who has time for class actions that plead everything and the kitchen sink, a vexed judge wants to know, calling on litigants to home in on the real contest in their cases.
A judge has ruled that building materials giant Boral breached its continuous disclosure obligations, in a win for a class action, but will wait on the High Court's ruling in cases against CBA before deciding whether shareholders have established damages.
Trial has kicked off in ASIC's first-ever design and distribution suit over high-risk contracts for difference, after an in-principle agreement reached with investment company eToro fell through.
A court has tossed the corporate regulator's case against Freedom Insurance's former boss and another executive, finding that a sales incentives scheme did not breach conflicted remuneration laws.
A judge has said an 11-day trial in ASIC's case against Solve My Debt Now will go ahead in December despite a third set of solicitors ceasing to act and no sign that the debt management firm will put on evidence.
The lawyer representing applicants in sexual harassment and discrimination class actions against mining giants BHP and Rio Tinto has said there may be thousands of group members.
Personal lender ClearLoans and its parent company have agreed to pay penalties of just over $6 million to settle the first COVID-19 related case brought by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
The sole director of personal lender ClearLoans has agreed to settle the first case the Australian Securities and Investments Commission brought related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Personal lender ClearLoans has lost its bid to strike out claims in ASIC’s first case related to the COVID-19 pandemic after a judge found the regulator’s action, which accuses the lender of breaching the hardship provisions of the credit laws, was “sufficiently clear”.
The judge overseeing ASIC’s first COVID-19-related case has criticised personal lender ClearLoans’ delay in responding to the case, saying a change in the company's legal representation was not an excuse for defaulting on court orders.