The plaintiffs firms running rival shareholder class actions against construction giant Lendlease have pitched a proposal to join their competing cases, a plan that should find favour with the judge overseeing the cases, who recently forced the consolidation of three duplicate class actions against failed engineering firm RCR Tomlinson.
The family of an Australian national who was killed aboard Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 is challenging a ruling that blocked it from participating in a recent class action settlement.
Labour hire company Workpac is seeking to stay two class actions over leave entitlements allegedly owed coal miners, amid a looming judgment from the Full Federal Court that will clarify the definition of casual employees.
The ABC is challenging a court ruling last month that rejected its bid to access documents behind the Australian Federal Police’s warrant to search its headquarters and partially blocked an application to amend claims in its case over the legality of the raid.
Mining firm MACH Energy has resolved a lawsuit brought by a former director seeking $20 million in shares allegedly owed under an equity incentive scheme.
The Federal Government is facing a class action over its Centrelink robodebt scheme that alleges 400,000 notices issued by Centrelink since 2016 have illegally sought to recover debts.
Pharmaceutical company Generic Health has told the Federal Court that, on advice from their solicitors, Otsuka and Bristol-Myers Squibb “deliberately” chose not to disclose their reasons for an admission in a long-running patent case over the anti-psychotic drug Abilify, which they are now seeking to withdraw.
Two Australian companies have won their application for special leave to the High Court as they continue their fight to shut down a wrongful death case in the US brought by the families of 15 people killed in an aircraft crash near Lockhart River in northern Queensland in May 2005.
The ACCC’s recommendation in its digital inquiry report for a statutory cause of action for serious invasions of privacy has merit as a mechanism to safeguard individual’s privacy where it is not protected by the Privacy Act or the patchwork of surveillance and related legislation. But it remains to be seen whether there will be any greater governmental impetus than on previous occasions to make the legislative changes required, writes Gilbert + Tobin partner Melissa Fai and lawyer Stephanie Essey.
Five IOOF executives will learn their fate this week when a judge rules on a disqualification bid by the prudential regulator, the first judgment to be delivered by a court in a case filed in the wake of last year’s scandal-airing banking royal commission.
For information on rights and reprints, contact subscriptions@lawyerly.com.au
