The Commercial Bar Association of Victoria Inc. A0120851O
The Full Court of the Federal Court upheld a judgment setting aside NOPSEMA’s decision to approve an environment plan for Santos’s offshore gas drilling project in the Timor Sea. The Court held that traditional owners of the Tiwi Islands, who had not been consulted, had “functions, interests or activities” which may be affected by the project.
The National Credit Code has been interpreted to apply only to credit obtained for residential property purposes when the loan money is to be used directly by the borrower and not where the borrower’s intention was to pass on the loan funds to be used by another person.
The effect of a very significant judgment of the South Australian Court of Appeal is that unless there is an express agreement to the contrary, ordinarily parties to an arbitration agreement will not be subject to the proportionate liability regimes that apply throughout Australia (with the possible exception of the Queensland regime).
Is the fact that a party is a corporation incorporated under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) sufficient to bring a proceeding within federal jurisdiction, and thus to deprive VCAT of jurisdiction to hear that matter?
Is there a “minimum requirement” of procedural fairness applicable to all proceedings in a Chapter III court? No, according to a narrow majority of the High Court in SDCV v Director-General of Security [2022] HCA 32.
A judgment of the Court of Appeal on the determination of a preliminary issue whether an insured was entitled to indemnity explores the nature of the insured’s obligation to take reasonable precautions to comply with certain regulations and guidelines.
The County Court of Victoria has recently created a specialist Arbitration List to facilitate the voluntary referral of appropriate commercial proceedings to arbitration. How the list works and what this means for litigants is explained below.
Defamation – publication – search engine operators – link provided to third party website containing defamatory material – Google not a “publisher” of defamatory matter by providing a hyperlink to the defamatory article found on a third-party website, in response to a search for Mr Defteros’ name
In this case, the Full Court upheld Burley J’s conclusions that three of six batches of Juno Pharmaceutical Pty Ltd’s parecoxib products did not infringe Pharmacia LLC’s patent. Their Honours also upheld Burley J’s conclusions that the other three batches of Juno’s products did infringe and that the patent was valid.
The parties had jointly proposed an agreed pecuniary penalty of $75 million, which the Federal Court held was manifestly inadequate and ordered a penalty of $125 million. This was upheld by the Full Court and the High Court declined to grant special leave to appeal.
This decision by Justice Rofe relating to marks associated with dishwashing capsules is another example of how difficult it can be to protect a shape mark, particularly when used with other distinctive trade marks and trade indicia.
On the appeal from the decision of the Full Federal Court that Aristocrat’s claim to an electronic gaming machine was not a manner of manufacture as required by s 18 of the Patents Act, the six Justices of the High Court who sat were evenly divided. The result is that the appeal was dismissed, but there is no binding precedent.
The Victorian Court of Appeal has re-affirmed that a director’s signature can indicate an intention to provide a personal guarantee, even where that signature is qualified. The Court also confirmed that a creditor’s right to interest under a director’s guarantee is not affected by a DOCA.
Hornsdale Power Reserve penalised $900,000 for contraventions relating to its role as a provider of back-up services to the National Electricity Market