A unit of insurer Marsh breached its obligation not to use documents discovered in litigation over the $7 billion collapse of Greensill by using them in an anti-suit injunction bid in the UK, a court has found.
Coles and Woolworths have hit back at the ACCC’s claims they advertised “illusory” discounts, pointing the finger at inflation and higher supply costs.
A personal injury firm that lost out to a class action heavyweight in a contest to run a case against Toyota unit Hino has dropped its appeal and will wear the costs it incurred in bringing its case.
Google has slammed Fortnite game maker Epic Games’ landmark competition case against it as “contrary to commercial reality”, saying its competition with rival tech giant Apple means it is no monopolist.
In a landmark competition case, Apple has told the Federal Court that Epic Games and other developers should not be allowed to “freeride” on the resources and user base the tech giant has “spent many billions” to develop.
Epic Games has taken aim at Google for the “untruthful evidence” of its witnesses in the game maker’s competition case against the tech giant, as well as its failure to call senior executives to the stand to defend itself.
Video game maker Epic Games has attacked as “entirely contrived” the defence by Apple in closing submissions in a Federal Court trial of its landmark competition case, pointing to the tech giant’s lack of evidence, including from CEO Tim Cook.
While it was unfair for a judge to pick Gilbert + Tobin to run a class action against Jaguar Land Rover on the condition that it lower its funding rate, the judge was entitled to consider the law firm’s experience in a similar case against Toyota, an appeals court has said in its reasons.
A decision awarding carriage to Gilbert + Tobin in a class action against Jaguar Land Rover on the condition that it lower its funding rate lacked procedural fairness, the Full Court has found, prompting the firm to team up with its competitor to run the case.
Sky News has taken its fight with Isentia to the Full Federal Court, after a judge found the the media monitor was not liable for copyright infringement despite the “wholesale copying” of content distributed to government clients.