Law Firms

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.

An appeals court has overturned a finding that Racing NSW was not entitled to appoint administrators to the owners of Sydney’s Randwick Racecourse.

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. 

A builder has lost its bid to amend a negligence claim in a dispute over a warehouse refurbishment contract in Sydney’s Homebush. 

Builtcom has scored a win in a fight over termination payments connected to a development in Melbourne's east, with a judge finding the entitlement to the payments was not extinguished by non-compliance with progress claim procedures.

A judge has criticised the “glacial pace” of a dispute between Seymour Whyte and a subcontractor that stretches back over a decade, while awarding the construction company a further $150,000 in security for costs.

The lead shareholder in class actions against CBA has urged the High Court to take a "common sense" approach to loss causation in securities cases, as endorsed by the Full Federal Court in last month's ruling for Worley's investors.

A failed class action against former NAB super fund trustee NULIS Nominees over $165 million in conflicted remuneration has asked the High Court to revive the case and provide clarity on the fees for-profit trustees can charge for their compensation. 

A judge has approved a $35 million penalty against HSBC in ASIC’s novel case over the bank's scam protection failures, despite questioning whether the punishment was severe enough given how long the case took to settle.

HSBC has agreed to pay a $35 million penalty in ASIC proceedings after it admitted to serious failures in protecting customers from scams, but a judge is questioning whether the penalty is high enough.