Dendy Cinema has paid a $19,800 penalty after the ACCC alleged it failed to prominently display the total price for movie tickets sold online at the earliest point in the sale process, a practice known as ‘drip’ pricing.
A judge has consolidated two cases in the Federal Court in which beverage maker Bickford’s is defending its ‘Spritz’ trade mark against bids for cancellation.
The Fair Work Commission has found that an electrician had no choice but to quit after copping an expletive-laden talking to by his boss, despite accepting that swearing was likely “part of the everyday work culture” at the blue-collar business.
S&P has reached a settlement in a case by two Cayman Island companies over alleged defective ratings but a class action won’t settle until “hell freezes over,” a court has heard.
A judge has OK’d a settlement in a class action against Treasury Wine Estates, along with $27 million in fees charged by Maurice Blackburn and Slater & Gordon, after initially questioning the difference between the firms’ rates.
Zip Co wants the High Court to weigh in on the defence of honest concurrent use in trade mark infringement cases, pointing to a “glaring inconsistency” between two recent rulings.
The administrators of Roberts Co have recommended that creditors accept a deal from founder Andrew Roberts that would see a cash contribution of $17.4 million to release Roberts and others from any claims.
A judge has rejected bids by former Keystone director Paul Chiodo and developer Robert Filippini to stay a $150 million suit, citing investors’ interests as a “powerful” factor weighing against the stay.
A defunct sand importer has told a court that it was “strung along” by the Port of Authority of NSW over an agreement to build a multi-user facility in Glebe Island, alleging the government-owned corporation is liable for $300 million in damages for unconscionable conduct.
Childcare centre Bright Days is on the hook for a $1 million payment to builder ATG under an $11 million construction contract, after a judge rejected its argument that an adjudicator’s decision not to determine a payment application due to a perceived conflict of interest was a determination of the application.
For information on rights and reprints, contact subscriptions@lawyerly.com.au
