The High Court has refused to resolve a conflicting authorities in the law regarding treatment of payments over award in sham employment contracts.
Trade marks – counterfeit goods – respondents manifestly unbelievable – compensatory damages – additional damages
Patents – innovation patent – unjustified threats
Geographical indications – “Champagne Jayne” – promotion on Internet and social media – misleading and deceptive conduct
Scandinavian Tobacco Group Eersel BV v Trojan Trading Company Pty Ltd  FCA 1086 (9 October 2015) Trade marks – parallel importation – unpacking and repackaging due to tobacco labelling laws – whether...
Trade marks – objection to registration – deceptive similarity – likelihood of deception or confusion – MALTESERS vs MALTITOS
The Australian Energy Regulator says that networks’ regulated revenue should not cover inefficient EBA redundancy policies; but the Fair Work Commission rules that the networks must continue to apply those policies. Who will bear the cost: the networks, or consumers?
A trustee in bankruptcy can object to discharge on grounds that go beyond those specified in the Bankruptcy Act.
A bankruptcy trustee’s notice objecting to discharge on one of the special grounds specified in the Bankruptcy Act 1966 can be valid even if based on additional unstated reasons, so long as those reasons are directed to the achievement of a purpose of the law of bankruptcy.
Rare judgment provides insight into exploration JV disputes and construction of Joint Operating Agreements.
Is the existence of a reference date under Security of Payment legislation a jurisdictional fact amenable to review?
The NSW Court of Appeal determined, unanimously, that a finding by an adjudicator of an available reference date is not a jurisdictional fact and therefore is not a precondition to the making of a valid payment claim. On this basis the adjudicator’s decision was not amenable to judicial review.
Validity of payment claims solely for work previously performed but not claimed in an earlier payment claim in respect of an earlier reference date under the BCISOP Act
Will a Payment Claim under the BCISOP Act be valid if it:
- only claims for work not previously claimed in an earlier payment claim made pursuant to an earlier reference date; and / or,
- does not contain a claim for work performed since the last reference date ?
VCAT has recently confirmed that an applicant in a building action is not entitled to make a claim against a respondent who has been joined as a concurrent wrongdoer if that claim is out of time under the Building Act 1993.
In obiter remarks the High Court has now provided some clarity by unequivocally stating that “surrounding circumstances” may only be used to construe a written contract when “ambiguity” is present.
“Bad call”: Non-disclosure by franchisor of franchisee wage costs