Ray White has secured a stay of examinations of its employees, as a creditor of FSM Development investigates claims the real estate agency’s loan agreement with the collapsed Sydney developer was uncommercial.
A judge has recused himself from hearing a ‘sham contracting’ case against Uber because he previously represented the rideshare giant in four similar matters when he was a barrister.
Explosives company Dyno Nobel is appealing a court’s dismissal of its case seeking to invalidate patents owned by rival Orica for a wireless detonation device.
Following the failure of two class actions to prove market-based loss from the Commonwealth Bank’s disclosure breaches, the bank is fighting the class actions’ bid to pursue individual ‘no transaction’ cases, saying they were “trying to keep something alive that is truly dead”.
A judge has found that builder DT Infrastructure’s application for adjudication of a $22 million payment claim against Downer EDI was discharged by Downer paying off a smaller claim of less than $1 million, which was the only amount expressly referred to in DTI’s application.
The owners of a landmark building in the Sydney suburb of Manly have lost their challenge to a decision which found they owed the local council over $419,000 in car park licence fees and damages for installing a roller door.
Noni B owner Mosaic Brands has been hit with a $25 million penalty for breaching consumer laws by failing to delivery 740,000 packages within the time frame specified on its website.
A Federal Court judge has refused to recuse himself in a dispute over legal fees following a Sydney barrister’s successful defamation case against Nine but has sent the matter to the NSW Supreme Court.
A class action on behalf of nearly 150 NSW Liberal Party members who claim party officials failed to lodge their nomination forms ahead of the 2024 local government elections is seeking leave to file a third mended statement of claim.
Piper Alderman is appealing a decision that stayed its competition class action against Google in favour of a competing case, saying group members had been deprived of a “substantially superior” funding model.