Power in Shutdown vs Fairness in Lawful Continuity
When Sydney’s Quarrymans Hotel was sold just before COVID lockdowns, the buyer refused to settle — claiming the pub wasn’t operating in its “usual and ordinary course.” The High Court disagreed. In Dyco v Laundy Hotels (2023), it ruled that a vendor need only run its business lawfully, not normally, when pandemic restrictions apply. The case is now the definitive guide to commercial contracts under supervening legal change.
When Five Class Actions Collide Before Anyone Chooses a Lawyer
When five shareholder class actions were launched against AMP after the Banking Royal Commission, the courts faced a new kind of competition — not between plaintiffs and defendants, but between law firms and litigation funders. In Wigmans v AMP Ltd (2021), the High Court rejected the idea that the “first to file” should automatically lead. The decision reshaped Australia’s approach to class action multiplicity and clarified that only Parliament — not courts — can decide who gets to run a case.
When “Becoming a Contractor” Becomes the Law: ZG Operations v Jamsek
For 30 years, two truck drivers delivered lighting goods for the same company. When they were told to “become contractors” — buying their own trucks — they kept working as before. But decades later, the High Court ruled they were never employees. In ZG Operations v Jamsek (2022), the Court drew a sharp line: when a contract is genuine, not a sham, its words decide the relationship. The case reshaped what “independence” means in Australian work law.
When a Contract Calls You a “Contractor” but the Law Says Otherwise
When a young backpacker signed a “self-employed contractor” agreement to work on a Perth construction site, he thought he was free — until the High Court said otherwise. In CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting (2022), the Court ruled that the true test of employment lies in the contract’s substance, not the label. This case redefined how Australia distinguishes workers from contractors — reshaping fairness in the gig economy.
When Privacy Silences a Billion-Dollar Dispute
When family wealth meets confidentiality and control, the High Court must decide who gets to tell the story. In Rinehart v Hancock Prospecting (2019), the Court upheld arbitration clauses that forced family trust disputes into private hearings. The case redefined how far confidentiality can reach in Australia’s commercial and family trust law — showing that, sometimes, even family truth stays behind closed doors.
When Confidentiality Silences the Truth: The Risk No Australian Expects
When Serco tried to stop its former detention officer from speaking to lawyers for a detained child, the Victorian Supreme Court ruled that justice comes before silence. In AS v Minister for Immigration (2016), Justice Forrest held that confidentiality clauses cannot be used to obstruct fair trial preparation. The decision remains a landmark for balancing corporate secrecy with public accountability.
When a Pause Can Save a Company
The High Court confirmed that a deed of company arrangement can lawfully pause creditor claims even when no property is available for distribution. Mighty River v Hughes [2018] HCA 38 explains why Part 5.3A allows a structured pause to preserve value, protect creditors, and ensure decisions are made with proper information.
When Silence Becomes a Legal Right
A court cannot force someone to speak simply because disclosure would make a case easier to run. In Crown Resorts Ltd v Zantran Pty Ltd [2020] FCAFC 1, the Full Court confirmed that confidentiality remains a legal right unless shown unlawful, and that efficiency in litigation cannot override substantive rights. This case explains why structural boundaries matter in the justice system and what Australians should understand about confidentiality, fairness and proper legal process.
When a Licence Almost Took a Brand Away From Its Owner
A licensing agreement for cheddar and butter was later argued to stop Bega from using its own name on new products. In Fonterra v Bega (2021), the Court confirmed the licence extended only to the products it defined. The decision highlights the power of precise wording in determining who controls a brand’s growth.
When Your Payment Depends on Someone Else’s Contract
A subcontractor completed his work but was told he had to wait for payment until the entire project reached occupancy — an event controlled by another contract. In Maxcon v Vadasz (2018), the High Court declared this dependency unlawful. The case highlights why payment fairness must be built on clear, contract-specific timing, not external milestones.
When a $3 Cost Became a $35 Fee, and the Law Still Allowed It
A missed credit card payment cost the bank about $3, but the fee was up to $35 — and the High Court upheld it. In Paciocco v ANZ (2016), the Court confirmed that a charge is lawful if it protects a legitimate commercial interest, even when it exceeds actual loss. The case shows why fairness depends on structure, not assumption.
When Losing Access to Your Own Email Decides Your Future
A long-serving executive was told redeployment was possible, then lost access to the very systems he needed to find a new role. In CBA v Barker (2014), the High Court confirmed there is no implied duty of mutual trust and confidence in Australian employment contracts. The case reveals how fairness must be built into process, not left to assumption.
When One Wrong Name Cancels a $146,000 Security
A performance bond naming error left a government agency unable to access $146,965, even though the contract was theirs. The High Court held that undertakings must be honoured exactly as written, not as intended. Simic v NSW Land & Housing Corporation reveals how minor documentation slips can create major financial consequences — and why structural safeguards are essential.