Most Recent
A judge has rejected an application by the plaintiffs in two class actions against Freedom Foods and Deloitte to run their cases side-by-side, but said she would have granted a bid to consolidate the proceedings had that been sought.
Iconic Australian beer manufacturer Carlton & United Breweries has lost an appeal seeking to shield information about 1,500 allegedly privileged documents from the Australian Taxation Office.
Supermarket giant Woolworths has denied the Fair Work Ombudsman is entitled to seek compensation for its underpayment of staff, saying its $330 million remediation to affected employees fully answers the regulator's case.
Recent changes to the law requiring funded class actions to be registered as managed investment schemes have complicated the question of how best to resolve the multiplicity issue in two class actions brought against Freedom Foods and Deloitte.
The ACCC has called for further public submissions on a proposed acquisition by JBS Australia of a Singapore-owned pig farm and abattoir business after it raised preliminary competition concerns with the $175 million sale.
Monster Energy has instituted court proceedings against PepsiCo after failing to block the beverage giant from registering the 'Monster Munch' trade mark for the iconic British kids corn snack in Australia.
A settlement has been reached in a Murray Darling wine making family's lawsuit accusing PricewaterhouseCoopers of providing bad unsolicited tax advice that caused them more than $200,000 in losses.
Consulting giant EY wants a court to dismiss a case brought by a joint venture alleging negligence in due diligence reports of Coca-Cola Amatil's $40 million sale of fruit processing business SPC.
A judge has again suggested the Full Court should weigh in on whether the court has the power to make class closure orders, but the barrister for the applicant in an underpayments class action against Domino's Pizza told the judge her client may not want to be the test case.
In a recent decision, the Full Federal Court confirmed that a trade mark owner who merely authorises use of its trade mark cannot be subject to liability for direct trade mark infringement under section 120(1) of the Trade Marks Act, writes Shelston IP's Kathy Mytton and Sean McManis.