The Full Federal Court has revived an out-of-time defamation case over an episode of A Current Affair, finding that it would not have been reasonable to file the proceedings within a year given the âspectre of criminal proceedingsâ against Queensland man Geoffrey Landrey.
The eSafety commissioner has won a 16-day injunction against X after telling a court the social media platform had not complied with court orders to hide several posts that allegedly included videos of a stabbing at a Sydney church last week.Â
The eSafety commissioner has won a two-day injunction against social media platform X, forcing it to hide several posts that allegedly include videos of a stabbing at a Sydney church last week.Â
National Australia Bank has lost its bid to shield a case by a Melbourne gold bullion dealer after a judge said one of the bankâs arguments for suppression had âthe air of a Kafka novelâ.
Mazda has been ordered to pay $11.5 million after a court found the Japanese car maker engaged in “appalling” customer service and misled nine purchasers of defective vehicles about their entitlement to a refund or replacement under the Australian Consumer Law.
A judge has knocked back a bid by the Australian Federal Police to have an upcoming trial over an allegedly defamatory press conference run on a stripped-back âfirst impressionâ basis.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and Mazda have both lost their appeals in a case over the car manufacturerâs âappallingâ customer service, with three judges questioning the regulatorâs decisions in how it ran the case.
Nine has defeated a bid to strike out its truth defences in a defamation case by a Melbourne hairdresser alleging a segment on ‘A Current Affair’ about ‘internet trolls’ and subsequent comments on the programâs Facebook page defamed her.
A judge has found Nine should not face an out-of-time defamation action over an allegedly defamatory episode of A Current Affair that aired in 2019.
A judge was wrong to find that Mazda’s treatment of customers with faulty vehicles was appalling but not unconscionable, and nowhere in his ruling is there an explanation for the distinction, the consumer regulator has told an appeals court.