A judge has given his seal of approval to a $29 million settlement that resolves a class action over Radio Rentals’ Rent, Try, $1 Buy scheme alleging customers were kept in the dark about the true cost of their rentals.
A law firm bringing the second of two cases by franchisees against Domino’s Pizza is weighing a possible class action against the fast food giant.
The property developers behind two Canberra apartment complexes have been dealt a partial loss in two class actions against them, with a judge finding the developers misled the lead applicants about the GST payable on their units but that only some of them were entitled to compensation or restitution.
Canberra-based plaintiffs law firm Adero Law has hit back at claims by hospitality giant Merivale that their 3,000 employees would not benefit from a Fair Work class action seeking $129 million in allegedly unpaid wages, saying the concerns were “meaningless”.
Law firm Thomson Geer is facing a negligence lawsuit by a commercial property investment firm over advice it gave in relation to a $120 million Melbourne car park acquisition.
War veteran Ben Roberts-Smith has been denied access to evidence revealing the identity of confidential sources that leaked information concerning alleged war crimes in Afghanistan that were detailed in news articles at the centre of a defamation lawsuit.
A partner at Corrs Chambers Westgarth who successfully opposed a genome editing patent by ToolGen, and a corporate predecessor of law firm Ashurst, have been ordered to pay $375,000 in security in an appeal launched by the South Korean biotech firm.
Vocus Group has agreed to settle a shareholder class action over a 2017 profit downgrade, with its insurers footing most of the bill to resolve the proceedings.
Uber has failed to put the brakes on a massive class action alleging the ride-sharing giant engaged in a conspiracy to steal business from taxi and limousine drivers across four states.
Defunct Dover Financial, which faces a penalty hearing next year after it was found to have misled customers with an inaptly titled ‘client protection policy’, can bring an application for evidence from the corporate regulator that the policy did not harm anyone.