Law Firms

Baggage handling company Alstef Australia says the operator of Brisbane Airport is not entitled to call on $13.4 million in bank guarantees, claiming it is owed $32 million in a dispute over a baggage system upgrade at the airport’s domestic terminal.

A judge has sounded the alarm bell about regulators launching appeals to re-litigate enforcement proceedings, in a recent decision tossing the corporate cop's appeal in a case against insurer HCF Life.

The landlord of a Western Sydney commercial property has been awarded $328,000 in lost rent and outgoings after its former tenant, baked goods producer Allied Pinnacle, failed to repaint the external walls at the site.

The funder that backed a class action over the Morrison government’s Robodebt scheme, which settled for a record $548.5 million, is seeking a $71 million commission, but a contradictor has told the court a $23 million cut will suffice.

The liquidators of a NSW coal mine formerly owned by Sanjeev Gupta’s GFG Alliance have applied to the court to disclaim a deed under which GFG paid handsome royalties to former owner Glencore. 

Logistics company Brambles has lost its bid to pause costs orders while it prepares an appeal of the first post-trial win for a shareholder class action, while also flagging a bid to stay determination of group member claims.

Law firm Hall & Wilcox has promoted three dispute specialists to partner as part of a bumper crop of solicitors to advance this year. 

An appeals court has upheld a finding that grain exporter Co-operative Bulk Handling responded too late to a $22.6 million payment claim from Martinus Rail, agreeing that the clock started ticking on a Saturday. 

Under pressure from parliamentary committee members, KPMG said late Friday it would waive privilege and hand over investigation reports from Allens and Ashurst, after initially resisting orders for documents.

A shareholder class action against water treatment firm Phoslock wants the company to hand over reports by KPMG and FTI Consulting, arguing the material is not protected by legal professional privilege because it wasn't produced for the dominant purpose of providing legal advice.