Law firm Johnson Winter Slattery has expanded its building and construction law practice, recruiting an experienced partner from Baker McKenzie to join its Brisbane office.
Industrial technology company Delta Building Automation has been found liable for attempting to rig a bid for work on the National Gallery of Australia, in a win for the competition regulator.
Defending a class action by dealers over a decision to retire Holden, General Motors argues it would have been forced to close the unprofitable plant that manufactured the vehicles for the Australian market even absent the 2020 withdrawal of the iconic brand.
Transport for NSW is weighing an appeal after a judge found it was liable to pay damages in a class action brought on behalf of small businesses over interference caused by the construction of Sydney’s $3 billion light rail network.
The son of the architect of the Banksia class action fraud has been struck from the roll of lawyers by a Supreme Court of Victoria judge, who on Monday also approved a settlement with companies linked to the disgraced senior counsel for the case.
A judge has sided with National Tiles founder Frank Walker over the privilege status of advice from his lawyers in a case by a former director alleging Walker falsified minutes of a crucial company board meeting, saying the evidence on its face did not suggest the minutes had been fabricated.
A judge has tossed out an application by a group of surgeons who formerly worked for The Cosmetic Institute to declass a representative proceeding on behalf of 13,500 patients who claim they suffered injury or complications from breast augmentation surgery.
Building materials giant James Hardie Industries is facing a class action alleging it breached its disclosure obligations over its adjusted net income forecasts for the 2023 financial year.
A former Cushman & Wakefield director is appealing a ruling released Friday that upheld a non-compete restraint in her employment contract with the real estate services giant.
The security sum sought by Monster Energy from an inventor suing the beverage giant for patent infringement was “manifestly excessive”, a judge has said, and was based on an estimate of costs that included the fees of three solicitors and two barristers at an interlocutory hearing.