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.
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 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.
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 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.
When Pressure Isn’t Urgency: The High Court’s Discipline in Digi-Tech v Kalifair
When judgment debts exceed $42 million and related entities blur where money really sits, urgency becomes a legal question — not a commercial feeling. Digi-Tech v Kalifair shows why stays, enforcement freezes and timing pressures must be handled with structural discipline, not speed.