Law Firms

Online trading platform Plus500 is challenging a court ruling that investors who lost money on highly leveraged contracts for difference can proceed with their class action despite signing arbitration clauses.

X Corp can't challenge a finding that it must face a complaint of religious vilification in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, with an appeal tribunal saying a member was not wrong to draw on defamation and consumer case law.

A judge has ordered Mobil Oil to pay an agreed penalty of $16 million for running ads in far north Queensland over a period of four years falsely claiming that it was supplying a specific brand of fuel with added benefits.

A judge has set aside a decision on a costs assessment application by online gambling platform PlayUp in relation to a $330,000 unpaid legal bill from Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer.

A judge ordered Westpac's CEO to front court over the "unconscionable" actions of mortgage subsidiary St George Bank in refusing to reverse an adverse credit record from a customer short $44.11 on her mortgage payments.

Allied Pinnacle has partially succeeded in its fight over a commercial lease in Western Sydney, with a judge finding the baked goods supplier did not have to remove its fit out at the conclusion of its lease, but did have to repaint the external walls.

In response to a trade mark infringement case by CIMIC, developer Leyton Property is bringing a cross-claim that argues the building giant should lose its Leighton marks for non-use.

Deciding an issue that might take a class action against Ford to the High Court for a second time, a judge has found that used car owners can sue under the same consumer guarantee as someone who bought a new car. 

The former chair of Cor Cordis has sued the insolvency firm, claiming it passed resolutions in “bad faith” that reduced the value of its work in progress from $23 million to $12.7 million to avoid paying out his proper retirement entitlements. 

CIMIC faces a cross-claim in its trade mark infringement case against developer Leyton Property, which wants the building giant's Leighton marks removed from the registry for non-use.