Singh v Lugondela [2020] VSC 544
Supreme Court of Victoria adopts flexible approach to determining the date at which damages for failed contract of sale were to be assessed.
Homepage Blog
Court of Appeal considers issues of indefeasibility, knowledge of trusts and volunteers
In a recent examination of indefeasibility of title as it applies to persons with knowledge of existing equitable interests and volunteers, the Court of Appeal broadened the circumstances in which knowledge of a trust might affect one’s title and reversed the Victorian position regarding the “volunteer exception”.
Conflicted directors in Schemes of Arrangement: Re DWS Limited [2020] FCA 1590
In Re DWS Limited [2020] FCA 1590, the Federal Court considered the issue of whether directors are precluded from making a recommendation to members about voting on a members’ scheme of arrangement by reason of collateral benefits accruing to them under or in relation to the scheme.
Urban Alley Brewery Pty Ltd v La Sirène Pty Ltd
Trade marks – appeal from judgment dismissing trade mark infringement claim – inherently adapted to distinguish – deceptive similarity
State of Escape Accessories Pty Limited v Schwartz (No 2) and in other news…
Consumer law – orders for relief – declarations – injunction granted – damages.
Costs – apportionment of costs
State of Escape Accessories Pty Limited v Schwartz and farewell to Peter Heerey AM QC
Copyright – artistic works – work of “artistic craftsmanship” – innocent infringement – additional damages – Passing off and ACL misleading or deceptive conduct claims – accessorial liability
Swimmer, Shayna Jack, partially succeeds in appeal to Court of Arbitration for Sport
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) has partially upheld an appeal by swimmer Shayna Jack reducing her period of suspension from 4 years to 2 for taking the banned substance, Ligandrol.
The National Sports Tribunal’s first year
19 March will mark the one year anniversary of the National Sports Tribunal. This article examines the four decisions of the Tribunal to date.
Whistleblower Protection for Systematic Underpayment Complaints by an Employee
An employee who has been treated unfavourably in their employment after making an underpayment complaint may be able to pursue their employer under both the adverse action provisions in Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act and through the protection of whistleblowers in Part 9.4AAA of the Corporations Act in certain circumstances.
High Court finds for ASIC in case about personal financial advice and “social proofing”
The case concerned whether personal financial advice was provided in the context of phone calls designed to encourage consolidation of super accounts. The High Court found that it was, and in the process shed light on the definitions of “financial advice” and “personal advice” in the Corporations Act.
Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health USA Inc v Intervet International BV (No 2)
Practice and procedure – costs – costs of interlocutory applications to amend patent application
Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health USA Inc. v Intervet International BV
Patents – appeal on opposition to grant – pre-“Raising the Bar” – novelty – inventive step – utility
Axent Holdings Pty Ltd v Compusign Australia Pty Ltd
Patents Act– infringement and validity – variable speed limit signs – whether method or product claims – whether functional limitations were to capabilities or had to be present at all times – Crown use defence– innocent infringement– prior use defence– lapsed patent defence – lack of novelty (and section 24) and inventive step
Monster Energy Company v Mixi Inc
Trade marks – extension of protection in Australia to IRDA for trade mark MONSTER STRIKE in classes 9 and 41 – appeal from decision of Registrar – reputation of appellant’s marks including M icon and MONSTER ENERGY – whether reliance on s 42(b) and ss 18 and 29 of the ACL for opposition adds anything to reliance on s 60
Meat and Livestock Australia Limited v Branhaven LLC
Patents – amendment of patent application by court – power to order amendment after reasons given as to why patent invalid – section 102, whether narrowing amendments to claims resulted in an invention different from that described in the specification