1,091 results found

Many class actions in Australia are backed by third-party litigation funders.

In a unanimous judgement, the High Court found the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof.

The NSW Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal in part in relation to a violent altercation at the licensed premises.

This recent Federal Court decision serves as a timely reminder about privilege over third-party investigations and the documents created during such investigations which may be sought in subsequent litigation.

Concurrent wrongdoers must be liable for the same loss and damage for the proportionate liability provisions to apply.

It is not easy to discern any remaining unfairness for doctors, compared to lawyers, in respect of legal immunities.

Disputes between shareholders can be costly and disruptive, so it is important that any disputes are resolved quickly.

Ultimately, it will be judicial interpretation that will define the benefits and detriments of the threshold of summary judgment.

The Club and the designer/installer of the monument were equally liable for damages for nervous shock.

The litigation funding industry needs to be regulated, but there is much debate about appropriate kinds of regulation.

This case highlights the dangers of an expert relying on information provided without adequate professional scepticism.

The decision in the Hunt & Hunt case mean that a court is more likely to find that defendants are concurrent wrongdoers.

This P&E Court case serves as a timely reminder of the practical drafting issues that repeatedly face local governments.

When equipment is hired out but later damaged, hire businesses face a familiar challenge: who says the equipment wasn’t already faulty, who bears the risk, and can the hirer recover the cost of repair? The NSW Supreme Court’s decision in Civiltrak Sydney Pty Ltd v Orange Equipment Pty Ltd t/as Orange Hire offers valuable guidance to solving this puzzle.

The extradition case against Julian Assange has been close to some sort of resolution for at least four years.

On 30 June 2026 the Supreme Court of New South Wales handed down its judgment in Forever Grateful Holdings Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] NSWSC 761, which clarified the point in time at which the relevant facts are to be considered when determining a duty liability arising under the Duties Act 1997 (NSW) (Duties Act).

A court may order that a lease be "rectified", even without the parties’ consent, if the lease fails to properly record the common intention of the parties, is absurd or is obviously wrong.