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.
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.
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 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.