Most Recent
Seeking to quash search orders won by metals company Fortescue against former employees who founded a green iron rival, a lawyer for the start-up has said three terabytes of data were indiscriminately copied, including confidential, privileged and irrelevant material.
Four insurers have argued that class actions over alleged business interruption losses during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic should be de-classed, with one insurer saying group members cannot “go behind” a Full Court decision denying coverage for certain policyholders.
A judge is considering the extraordinary step of ordering costs against basketball coach Shane Heal in his failed Fair Work case against the Sydney Flames, saying the case was “very much on the margin” of constituting an exception to the no-costs rule.
Fund manager Real Asset Management has appealed a ruling which upheld mortgage broker RAMS’ bid to block the registration of two RAM trade marks.
Johnson Winter Slattery has boosted its cybersecurity, privacy and technology team by luring a senior technology lawyer from Herbert Smith Freehills.
Mills Oakley has lured a founding partner of Hamilton Locke and an environmental, social and governance lead from KPMG to join its Sydney team.
The managing partner of a leading plaintiff law firm has agreed to drop his case against a Melbourne law firm, which he claimed failed to properly advise him on an agreement that barred him from selling his shares in Slater & Gordon before the firm's share price plummeted in 2015.
Keybridge Capital chief executive officer Nicholas Bolton has lost his appeal of a costs review panel decision that saddled him with a legal bill of $308,940 for work done by Atanaskovic Hartnell for his company in a dispute with Brookfield Multiplex.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has brought proceedings against retailer The Good Guys, alleging it made misleading statements about store credit.
A judge has tossed an unconscionable conduct case against IT company IT&C, but declined to order costs against the individual applicant, citing his "many years of experience", but no firm evidence, in support of a finding that the order would harm the man’s mental health.