Lawyerly spoke to ten class action experts on the release of the Australian Law Reform Commission’s highly anticipated report into the class action regime. While many of the ALRC’s proposals were expected — and welcomed as sensible — others were greeted with concern and skepticism. Here, we look at the most controversial of the 24 recommendations.
Aviation services company Aerocare has lost its appeal of a Fair Work Commission decision that shot down an enterprise agreement forcing employees to work split shifts.
Juno Pharmaceuticals has resolved its appeal of an IP Australia ruling that allowed Seattle-based Juno Therapeutics to extend protection of its namesake trade mark into Australia.
Law firms would be able to charge contingency fees and the corporate disclosure obligations would go under the microscope as part of a shake-up of the class action regime recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission.
Teva has taken generic drug maker Pharmacor to court for allegedly threatening to infringe its patent for a Parkinson’s drug.
International law firm Jones Day has expanded its intellectual property team in Sydney, hiring experienced patent litigator Andrew Rankine from Ashurst as its second local partner.
Car giant Ford will face a claim of unconsionable conduct in a trial of a class action over its defective PowerShift transmission that is now scheduled to run twice as long as originally thought, but claims on behalf of second-hand Ford vehicle owners are out.
Responding to a judge’s criticism of the class action “beauty parade”, two rival law firms have come up with a plan to deal with their competing shareholder class actions against Brambles.
US company Branhaven has won leave to amend its cow genome patent after a judge dismissed opposition by industry bodies Meat & Livestock Australia and Dairy Australia as “flimsy” and “bizarre”.
Clive Palmer has lost a fight to stay criminal proceedings alleging his company breached takeover laws, with a judge slamming the Queensland mining tycoon’s claims the charges were politically motivated and saying there was “nothing exceptional” to warrant interference from the court.