A judge has allowed a Central Coast resident to weigh in on Optus’ challenge to a council’s refusal to bless its plans to build a telecommunications tower, saying the council’s “commercial relationship” with the telco justified a contradictor.
The Full Court has upheld the cancellation of a US sports merchandise company’s ‘Fanatics’ trade mark, agreeing it knew about Australian AFL merchandise maker FanFirm’s trade marks when it chose its name.
A Sydney-based Uber driver has filed a Fair Work Commission case seeking $50,000 in compensation and damages over recurring malfunctions in the rideshare app, saying drivers “should not bear the financial burden of Uber’s technical failures”.
Class action filings are set to reach a historic high by the end of 2025 thanks to 19 almost identical class actions brought by junior doctors, according to a new report. Interestingly, shareholder claims are on the rebound.
A SkyCity shareholder is seeking leave to launch a case against former executives and directors for their alleged role in the mismanagement of the casino’s money laundering risk, which last year resulted in a $67 million penalty.
A member of the Waterhouse racing family has lost his court fight with a neighbour over planned renovations to the garage of his $26 million distinctive Sydney mansion.
Roberts Co is fighting a finding that a $3.2 million payment claim served after-hours on a Friday by subcontractor Sharvain Facades was valid, arguing that voiding contractual provisions has broad consequences for the construction industry.
A judge has ordered solicitors in a residential building spat to explain why costs orders should not be made against them, after they racked up sizeable fees for what she described as a small and simple dispute.
Aristocrat has lost its bid to question class action members about whether they have a gambling problem ahead of mediation, with a judge saying it called for “self-diagnosis” and would not yield reliable results.
The corporate regulator has appealed a Federal Court decision that rejected part of its case against HCF Life Insurance over a pre-existing condition term in its policies that was found to be misleading but not unfair.