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.
Getting the Structure Right Before Costs Escalate: Lessons from Consolidated Media (2012)
The High Court in Consolidated Media shows how early structural decisions — even a single accounting entry — can determine a dispute’s direction. This article explains how Clean Law’s strategy-first, one-tender model helps clients choose the right lawyer and pathway from the start.
When Revenue and Purpose Pull in Different Directions: Incentive Design Lessons from Word Investments (2008)
The High Court in Word Investments showed that commercial activity does not override charitable purpose when incentives are structurally aligned. This article explains how incentive design shapes legal character.
When Activities Look Mixed: Why Role-Separation Matters in Charity and Business Structures
Word Investments shows why role-separation and transparent financial pathways matter. Mixed activities can be mistaken for mixed purposes unless structure keeps each function visible and independent.
When Charity and Commerce Intersect: Governance Lessons from Word Investments (2008)
The High Court in Word Investments confirmed that commercial activities do not disqualify a charity—if governance structures keep its purposes confined. This article explains why purpose clarity is a structural issue, not just an intention.
When Set-Off Meets Fairness: Insights from Metal Manufactures v Morton
The High Court’s decision in Metal Manufactures v Morton closed the door on creditors using statutory set-off to shield unfair preference payments. This case note unpacks the Court’s reasoning, why the set-off argument failed, and what today’s businesses can learn from a judgment built around fairness, transparency, and the proper handling of money moving in both directions. It also shows how Clean Law’s escrow safeguards reflect the very principles the High Court reinforced.
Fairness in the Flow of Money: Lessons from Bryant v Badenoch
The High Court’s decision in Bryant v Badenoch reshaped the law of unfair preferences by rejecting the peak-indebtedness rule and reaffirming the deeper purpose of the running-account principle: to look at the relationship as a whole. This case note explains the judgment’s logic and why it matters for modern business relationships, especially where finances move back and forth in ways that can mask underlying vulnerabilities. It also shows how Clean Law’s escrow safeguards reflect the same fairness architecture the Court reinforced.
When Control Becomes Unfair: Lessons from Hillam v Ample Source
Hillam v Ample Source clarifies when courts will intervene in oppressive conduct and even wind up a solvent company. This short case note explains how “commercial unfairness” arises whenever one party holds disproportionate control — and why the same principle underpins Clean Law’s escrow safeguards, where client funds cannot move without their clear, informed approval.
When Power Meets Fairness: Lessons from Gambotto v WCP Ltd
Gambotto v WCP Ltd reshaped Australian company law by insisting on proper purpose and fairness before majority power can expropriate minority shares. This short case note explains why the judgment still matters for today’s executives — especially when decisions concentrate power or shift financial risk. Learn the modern business lesson: fairness is never optional.
Power That Can Be Used Against You
Minister for Public Works v Renard Constructions reshaped Australian contract law by confirming that broad contractual powers must be exercised reasonably and for a proper purpose. The case remains a leading authority on good faith, discretion, and fairness in commercial agreements.