The Full Court has rejected wealth guru Dominique Grubisa’s argument that a judge who slapped her and her company with a $6 million penalty wrongly confused the ordinary consumer with “the most ignorant”.
A court has found insurer Lloyds of London does not have to indemnify real estate agent Attree for underpayment claims by employees.
A competition class action against Stanwell and CS Energy has been tossed, with a judge finding the power companies’ conduct was legitimate “profit maximisation behaviour”.
The Full Court has found an executive at the company behind the Ultimate Fighting Championship gym franchise should not be on the hook for a $5 million judgment awarded to three franchisees.
On appeal of a $6 million judgment for misleading statements, Dominique Grubisa and her wealth education company DG Institute have argued her advice was based on faulty knowledge, not ill intentions.
Linchpin Capital liquidators have resolved their case against Grant Thornton and Moore Stephens, a year after a court found the evidence on its face established a claim against the auditors.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has argued the relief sought in proceedings against the director of two Paladin Group units does not constitute a penalty, as it challenges his reliance on the privilege against self-exposure to penalty.
Carnival PLC has denied that a passenger, whose husband contracted COVID-19 and had to be put on a ventilator, had a “horrible” time aboard the ill-fated Ruby Princess, in a class action’s appeal of a finding that she was only entitled to $4,000 in damages.
A class action against Carnival over a COVID-19 outbreak aboard its Ruby Princess cruise ship has told the Full Court the lead applicant is entitled to damages “far in excess” of the $4,000 awarded by the trial judge for distress and disappointment.
Cruise operator Carnival PLC has mounted a cross-appeal aimed at overturning a judge’s finding that it negligently failed to prevent a COVID-19 outbreak aboard the Ruby Princess cruise ship, telling the Full Court that the primary judge’s findings were not consistent with his reasons.