A Fairfax journalist and his employer have been ordered to pay $400,000 for making “baseless” accusations of fraud and unethical market manipulation against the co-founder of an Australian blockchain-based energy trading platform.
Dixon Advisory faces a second class action on behalf of investors who claim they suffered significant financial loss when the advice firm and its directors allegedly encouraged the purchase of high risk, high fee securities for their own financial gain.
A Sydney-based barrister has been reprimanded for relying on his “gut feeling” in making baseless accusations of misconduct against the principal of a law firm.
A judge has voided contracts between the Morrison government and a subsidiary of Empire Energy for gas exploration in the Beetaloo Basin after finding the decision to enter the agreement in the midst of litigation was “legally unreasonable or capricious”.
Melbourne craft beer producer Brick Lane Brewing Co has filed proceedings accusing three companies behind the zero carb Better Beer of ripping off its packaging in breach of the Australian Consumer Law.
A judge has rejected an “audacious” attempt by McMillan Shakespeare to recoup a surplus of funds left over after a $9.5 million class action settlement was distributed to registered group members.
The New South Wales Bar Association has lost an appeal seeking a financial penalty and a professional reprimand against a Sydney barrister for his “poorly judged, vulgar and inappropriate” behaviour, with an appeals court finding damage to his reputation and a hike in his insurance premium dwarfed any punishment it could dole out.
Beleaguered investment group Mayfair 101 will have to pay a $30 million penalty after a judge found a $12 million penalty proposed by ASIC was “insufficient”.
Ford has challenged its loss in a class action over its allegedly defective PowerShift transmissions, arguing group members who have had their cars repaired are not entitled to damages.
The applicant in a class action against Fairview Architectural over allegedly combustible cladding is add insurer Vero Insurance as a respondent, after revealing the cladding manufacturer may have $190 million in insurance to cover the class action’s claims.