Power, History and Fairness: When “Use” of Crown Land Becomes the Turning Point
The High Court in La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council v Quarry Street [2025] HCA 32 confirmed that Crown land is claimable under s 36(1)(b) of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act unless the Crown itself is using the land at the relevant time. The Court rejected approaches that focused on third-party occupation or the presence of infrastructure, holding that the statutory test turns solely on Crown use. This matters for clients because disputes involving land, infrastructure and public records often hinge on narrow statutory terms, and late-stage interpretation shifts can change the litigation pathway and its cost exposure. Cost-alignment (one-path funding) helps clients manage this uncertainty by ensuring they fund only the pathway they ultimately take, rather than preparing for settlement and litigation at the same time.
Power, Penalties and Fairness: When One Post Counts Once
The High Court in Laming v Electoral Commissioner [2025] HCA 31 held that an unauthorised electoral communication posted online constitutes a single contravention when it is disseminated to the public under s 321D of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The Court rejected an approach that multiplied penalties with each view of the post, noting that dissemination occurs when material is made available to the public, not each time it is opened. This matters for clients because digital conduct is increasingly central to regulatory disputes, and cost exposure often depends on how legislation treats online behaviour. When penalty risk turns on statutory interpretation rather than platform metrics, cost-alignment (one-path funding) helps clients fund only the pathway they ultimately take, rather than paying for both settlement work and litigation preparation at once.
Power, Structure and Fairness: When One Payment Serves Multiple Purposes
In ATO v PepsiCo [2025] HCA 30, the High Court held that part of the concentrate price paid by an Australian bottler was, in substance, consideration for the use of PepsiCo and SVC’s intellectual property. The Court found the concentrate supply and IP licences formed a single integrated product, and part of the payment “must to some extent” have moved the grant of the licences. Because that portion of the consideration related to brand and formulation rights, it was treated as a royalty for Australian tax law purposes. For clients, the case highlights a structural risk: when payments serve multiple commercial functions, regulators may recharacterise them, shifting the dispute’s trajectory and cost exposure. Cost-alignment (one-path funding) helps clients navigate these shifts by ensuring they fund only the pathway they ultimately take, not both settlement work and litigation preparation simultaneously.
Power, Workforce Choices and Fairness: Redeployment After Redundancy
The High Court in Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd v Bartley confirms that, when deciding whether a dismissal is a genuine redundancy, the Fair Work Commission may consider reasonable changes to how an employer allocates work across employees and contractors. The Court held that redeployment does not require an existing vacancy and that s 389(2) permits a broad inquiry into whether redeployment would have been reasonable in all the circumstances. This matters for modern enterprises that rely on blended workforces: redeployment outcomes can turn on contract flexibilities, anticipated workload changes and the practical availability of contractor-performed tasks. For clients, the strategic risk is financial — the dispute’s trajectory and cost exposure may shift as tribunals examine hypothetical pathways. Structuring matters through one-path funding helps ensure that when these evaluative assessments expand, cost-alignment keeps the client’s position clear and controlled.
Power, Funding and Fairness: When Class Actions Meet Professional Conduct Rules
High Court blocks percentage-based payments to solicitors in class actions. Clients face cost-incentive risks, making early pathway and funding clarity essential.
Power, Secrecy and Fairness: When Courts Must Withhold Information
High Court confirms strict secrecy rules in national-security appeals. The lesson for clients: when disclosure narrows, early pathway and cost alignment matter.
When Heritage Meets Valuation Law: The High Court Re-centres “Improvements” at the Date of Valuation
The High Court in WSTI Properties held that whether a building is an “improvement” must be assessed at the date of valuation, not when the structure was built. The case highlights how conflicting valuation assumptions can multiply litigation pathways. Clean Law explains how cost alignment and consolidated tenders help clients avoid funding duplicated strategies in valuation and planning disputes.
Unlimited Liability? Not Quite: How the High Court Clarified Airline Tariff Promises in Evans v Air Canada
Evans v Air Canada clarifies that an airline’s tariff stating “no financial limits” does not waive the Montreal Convention’s partial defence unless the tariff clearly does so. The High Court treated the clause as descriptive, not operative. This article explains the ruling and how Clean Law’s independence safeguards and consolidated-tender process help clients understand contractual limits before committing to litigation.
When a Case Splits in Two: Litigation Strategy and Cost Exposure After Lendlease v Pallas
Lendlease v Pallas confirms that multiple judicial review proceedings are not an abuse of process when each raises distinct legal errors. This article explains the ruling and how Clean Law’s cost-alignment and consolidated-tender safeguards give clients clarity on strategy and cost before committing to complex litigation.
What “Just and Reasonable” Really Means for Survivors: The High Court’s Guidance in DZY v Christian Brothers
DZY v Christian Brothers confirms that courts can set aside historical child-abuse settlements if it is just and reasonable — but evidence must show why the survivor renounced their rights. This article explains the ruling and how Clean Law’s independence safeguards and consolidated tender process give clients clarity about strategy, risk and cost before making irreversible decisions.
Who Gets to Hold Power Accountable? Standing and Access After Forestry Corporation v South East Forest Rescue
Forestry Corporation v South East Forest Rescue confirms that community groups with a special interest retain standing to enforce duties under an IFOA. The High Court required a “clear and unmistakeable” intention to restrict access and found none. This article explains the ruling and how Clean Law’s independence safeguards and consolidated-tender process give clients clarity before commencing proceedings.
When “Giving In” Isn’t an Agreement: Evidence, Assumptions, and the High Court’s Course in ACCC v Hutchinson
ACCC v Hutchinson confirms that capitulating under pressure is not an unlawful “understanding”. The High Court required proof of communication and mutual commitment. This article explains the case and how Clean Law’s one-path funding and tender-consolidation process give clients clarity on strategy, risk and cost before committing to litigation.
Funding, Fairness and Forum Choice: The High Court’s Warning in Bogan v Smedley
Bogan v Smedley confirms that a Victorian Group Costs Order is decisive when assessing whether a national class action should be transferred interstate. Without it, the class action would likely collapse. This article explains the ruling and how Clean Law’s cost-alignment safeguards prevent funding risks from undermining client rights.
When Safety Assessments Go Wrong: The High Court’s Course Correction in KMD v CEO (Department of Health NT)
KMD v CEO (Health NT) confirms that non-cooperation with experts does not invalidate a supervision-order review. The High Court ruled that appellate courts must apply statutory criteria using the most current evidence. This article explains the decision and how Clean Law’s independence safeguards protect fairness in complex decision-making processes.
When Lawyers Act for Themselves: Lessons from Birketu Pty Ltd v Atanaskovic
Birketu v Atanaskovic clarifies that law firms acting for themselves may recover costs for work done by their employed solicitors. This article explains the ruling and how Clean Law’s independence safeguards help maintain clear professional roles and transparent decision-making.
When Trust Property Moves in the Dark: Fiduciary Limits After Naaman v Jaken
Naaman v Jaken clarifies that a successor trustee does not owe fiduciary duties to a former trustee, even where trust assets are dissipated. This article explains the ruling and how Clean Law’s independence safeguards prevent harm caused by undisclosed or conflicted decision-making.
The Moment Fairness Became a Legal Duty: Lessons from Kioa v West
Kioa v West established that administrative decision-makers must disclose adverse material before relying on it. This article explains the case and how Clean Law’s independence safeguards ensure fairness is protected early, with transparent oversight and no referral-fee conflicts.
When Delay Becomes Damage: The High Court’s Warning in Aon Risk Services v ANU
Aon v ANU is a landmark case on delay and cost prejudice. The High Court held that late amendments cause irreversible harm and that costs orders cannot undo wasted preparation. This article explains the ruling and how Clean Law’s one-path cost model prevents clients paying for duplicated or abandoned work.
When a Court’s Power Stops: Jurisdictional Error after Craig v South Australia
Craig v South Australia shows why judicial review cannot fix most courtroom errors—only jurisdictional ones. The High Court held that even if a trial judge misapplies fairness principles, it is usually an error within jurisdiction. This article explains the decision and how Clean Law’s two-lawyer structure prevents fairness issues being lost inside the litigation process.
When a Case Cannot Start: The Enduring Signal of General Steel
The General Steel test shows when a case is too weak to proceed. This article explains why early viability mapping matters and how Clean Law’s initial steps give clients clarity before committing to litigation.