A human rights group is continuing its fight for the release of Australians held in a Syrian refugee camp, bringing its case for a writ of habeas corpus to the High Court.
A New Zealand appeals court has ruled that common fund orders can be made in class actions, even at the early stages, departing from the High Court of Australia in finding the commercial viability of a proceeding enhances access to justice.
A judge has ordered credit card giant American Express to pay $8 million in ASIC’s first-ever case over design and distribution obligations, but has criticised the recently enacted provisions as being “poorly drafted”.
The ACCC has secured $6 million in penalties against wealth education company DG Institute and its CEO Dominique Grubisa, as well as orders that the company refund $14.7 million in course fees to customers who enrolled in its ‘Master Wealth Control’ program.
The judge who presided over ASIC’s successful case against payday lender Sunshine Loans has recused himself from deciding on penalty in the matter, saying a new court protocol might be needed for when a judge makes an adverse credit finding during the liability phase of a case.
AFL merchandise maker FanFirm has won a trade mark case against US sports merchandise giant Fanatics, with a judge finding it knew about the Australian company’s ‘Fanatics’ trade marks when it chose its corporate name.
US footwear giant Crocs has reached a settlement with Mosaic Brands in a lawsuit accusing the Rivers owner of settling shoes that “flagrantly” copy the look of its unique 13-hole slip-on foam clogs.
Online auction site Grays has been ordered to pay $10 million in penalties after it admitted to making misleading statements in the descriptions of at least 750 cars listed for sale on its website.
A judge has rejected a law firm’s attempt to update its bid to run class actions against Hyundai and Kia, saying the changes were intended to net the firm a competitive advantage in an upcoming fight for carriage of the class actions and different in substance from its previous position.
A judge has rebuffed a developer’s bid to revive a $400 million lawsuit against an investor after it failed to comply with a guillotine order, saying it was not an adequate explanation that the firm of solicitors acting for it lacked the resources of the defendant’s Big Six outfit.