Software giant Oracle has won its bid to stay a $252 million fight with ATO over royalties, with the Full Federal Court finding the cases would not provide guidance in 15 other software disputes about the operation of the royalty tax.
The High Court has been asked to clarify the extent to which computer-implemented ideas are eligible for patent protection, with IP Australia appealing a win for gaming giant Aristocrat.
The High Court has upheld a decision to refuse a visa for conservative US commentator Candace Owens, finding the Migration Act’s character test did not infringe on the Constitution’s implied freedom of political communication.
The federal government has hit back against a class action by single women and same-sex couples deemed “socially infertile” and denied Medicare rebates for IVF, denying group members were treated less favourably because of their marital status or sexual orientation.
A judge has ordered embattled Optus to pay a $100 million penalty for “appalling” contraventions, after the telco admitted staff pressured customers into buying phones they couldn’t afford.
Santos has failed to convince a judge that it should not provide documents relied on by NOPSEMA to approve the company’s environmental plan for its Reindeer gas field in judicial review proceedings.
One Nation senator Pauline Hanson will dispute adverse credit findings made against her as part of her appeal of a judgment in a racial discrimination case by Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi.
It faced defeat at the Full Federal Court and encountered a deadlocked High Court, still Aristocrat persisted in its seven-year fight to get patent protection for the popular Lightning Link poker machine. The long game paid off.
An appeals court has thrown out challenges by three mining giants to a Fair Work Commission decision that requires them to bargain together with a group of employees and their union.
A judge has rejected all but two claims by ASIC in a suit against car finance provider Money3 and criticised how the regulator ran its case, saying it had consumed an “inordinate and disproportionate amount of the judicial and administrative resources of the court”.