CIP Group can subpoena Queensland Police, with a judge finding the timing of an ex-business partner’s complaints to police may be material to a change of tack in CIP’s $30 million suit over a residential development.
IG Energy and former subsidiary IG Power — now owned by Czech investment firm Sev.en — are fighting over a $3.5 million surplus from the administration of IG’s interest in the Callide Power Station in Queensland.
York Property has lost an appeal in a dispute with builder Tomkins over a payment claim for work on a Gold Coast high-rise, with the appeals court declining to set aside an adjudicator’s decision that was later cut down to $12.7 million.
A wellness retreat has launched an intellectual property suit against luxury Queensland resort Elysium Noosa, claiming that a recent rebrand amounts to passing off.
Ramsay Health Care has lost its challenge to development approval for a community health care services centre near its Greenslopes Hospital in Brisbane, with a court finding the centre would not interfere with the hospital’s operations.
An expert will not be asked to determine a potential cross-claim by Downer EDI Rail in a dispute with John Holland over a rollingstock manufacturing facility being constructed in Torbanlea.
ASIC wants a contempt ruling against the couple behind Gold Coast-based property developer ALAMMC Developments after they allegedly moved more than $500,000 out of frozen accounts and failed to disclose assets, including two racehorses, one of which is named ‘Within the Law’.
A superannuation fund has taken McCullough Robertson to court, arguing that its former solicitors failed to warn that a $33 million share sale agreement with Firecroft Technical Services could be jeopardised if a related Fair Work Commission approval was quashed.
The applicant in a failed class action against Queensland utilities Stanwell and CS Energy can’t get its hands on fee invoices as it prepares its response to a claim for recovery of what could be up to $40 million in costs.
A judge has approved a controversial shopping centre despite non-compliance with local planning laws, finding such schemes “are to be considered in a context where the needs of a community are not static and immutable” and that the centre would serve the fast growing community.