As Australia’s largest cities prepare to emerge from lockdown, law firms are doubling down on their efforts to vaccinate staff, with some going so far as to implement a ‘no jab, no office’ policy.
Investment firm Keybridge Capital has brought action in court seeking to set aside a statutory demand for $165,000 issued by its former law firm and calling for an assessment of over $600,000 in legal bills.
A local government has been ordered to repay its residents the tens of thousands of dollars they spent on an invalid canal maintenance levy, in what was the first class action victory to be recorded in the Queensland Supreme Court.
As states across Australia grapple with lockdowns and rising COVID-19 cases, lawyers practising in a range of areas, from employment to insurance, are bracing for a fresh wave of pandemic-related litigation before the year is out.
A shareholder class action against defunct fund manager Blue Sky Investments and others will be filed by the end of the year, Lawyerly has learned.
A judge has dismissed two cases brought by the Commonwealth Bank, Westpac and other lenders against directors of the failed steel giant Arrium, saying he was not satisfied the directors’ representations on loan drawdown notices were false or that the company was insolvent when it went into voluntary administration in April 2016.
While employers cannot force employees to get a COVID-19 vaccine, law firms are launching campaigns to encourage staff to sign up for the jab.
A judge has allowed a key US-based witness in ASIC’s case against former Quintis director Frank Wilson who will not submit to 14 days in hotel quarantine to give evidence by video link.
Two shareholder class actions against sandalwood producer Quintis that reached an in principle settlement over a year ago are moving forward following a protracted dispute over insurance, with the lead applicants getting approval to file proposed amended pleadings.
A settlement reached in a lawsuit by the liquidators of collapsed steel giant Arrium against 10 former company directors accused of insolvent trading has been approved by a judge, who noted that while the settlement amount was “substantial”, the deal involved a “substantial compromise”.