When Good Intentions Aren’t Enough: What Bargwanna Teaches About Client Funds and Structural Safety
The High Court in Bargwanna confirmed that purpose must be protected by structure, not intentions. In litigation, the same applies: clients need models that keep their funds aligned to their legal goals. Clean Law’s one-path, cost-aligned system is built so your funds stay in your lane.
When an Administrative Error Becomes a Legal Risk: Lessons from Travelex and Who Bears the Cost
A High Court ruling on administrative error shows how easily a mistaken allocation can shift financial risk onto the wrong party. Escrow prevents similar cost-shifting in litigation by keeping all funds client-controlled. Two independent lawyers, audited safeguards, and no referral fees keep strategy and budget clean.
When Two Marks Look Similar - Power, Perception, and the Court’s Objective Eye
The 1937 Australian Woollen Mills decision shows how easily perceptions of similarity can drive escalation. The Court required real evidence of likely deception — a reminder that objective assessment matters more than suspicion. Clean Law’s two-lawyer structure keeps those assessments separate from advocacy, reducing misreads and cost spiral.
When Ownership Meets Power: What Calidad v Seiko Epson Reveals About Hidden Limits on Your Rights
A short, clear breakdown of Australasian Memory Pty Ltd v Brien: how a timing error in a creditors’ meeting led the High Court to clarify the breadth of s 447A and why independent oversight protects businesses from similar procedural risks.
When Power Meets Fairness: Why House v R Still Governs Good Judgment
Sentencing discretion is one of the quiet engines of fairness in Australian law. House v R (1936) remains the compass: it tells courts when to intervene, and shows businesses today why documented reasoning, proportional decisions and transparent processes matter more than ever.
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.
The Moment “Reasonable Endeavours” Met a Shock to the Entire Market
The Woodside case clarifies the meaning of “reasonable endeavours” in commercial contracts. The High Court held that a party may consider its commercial, economic and operational interests when deciding whether it is able to supply under changed conditions.
When a Bank Took a Family Home Without Explaining the Risk
Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio remains the leading case on unconscionable conduct. The High Court set aside a guarantee taken from vulnerable guarantors because the bank failed to explain critical risks it knew they could not understand.
The Clause You Never Saw But Are Still Bound By
A signature binds a person to the terms of a document, whether read or not. Toll v Alphapharm confirms the objective rule that commercial agreements are enforced by conduct, not assumptions.
When Purpose Blurs, Protection Disappears: The Lesson of Esso v Commissioner of Taxation
The High Court in Esso v Commissioner of Taxation confirmed the dominant purpose test for legal professional privilege and showed how easily privilege unravels when legal and commercial work is mixed. The case remains a warning that clarity of purpose must be built into structure, not reconstructed after the fact.
When Authority Blurs, Risk Explodes: The Lesson of Pacific Carriers v BNP Paribas
A bank officer signed an indemnity she was not authorised to sign, and the High Court held the bank to the appearance of authority it created. Pacific Carriers v BNP Paribas shows how unclear internal systems can expose others to major loss — and why visible, reliable authority is essential in any modern legal or commercial decision.