Former senator David Leyonhjelm is appealing a ruling that socked him with a $120,000 damages bill in a defamation case brought by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, and has hired a new solicitor to bring the challenge.
A former Norton Rose Fulbright partner has lost his bid to block King & Wood Mallesons and two barristers from representing the law firm in a long-running feud over his termination, with an appeals court calling his allegations against the legal team “unfounded and misconceived”.
A settlement has been reached that brings an end to a class action against a Queensland law firm for allegedly charging personal injury clients excessive fees but does not resolve the claims of group members.
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.
A Sydney solicitor who was found liable for investor losses in a sports betting scheme masterminded by convicted conman Peter Foster may seek to shift the blame onto Westpac for the bank’s alleged failure to flag funds shifted offshore from the scheme.
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.
An Ashurst partner that argued a judge was “confused” when he decided to appoint liquidators to his luxury Point Piper home in a dispute with an ex-judge neighbour has lost his challenge to the ruling.
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.