When Illegality Meets Fairness in Contract Enforcement
When an unlicensed property agent helped a childcare company find sites, millions in commission were at stake. In Creative Academy v White Pointer (2024), the NSW Court of Appeal split on how far licensing laws reach — but agreed on one thing: restitution wasn’t available. The case shows that fairness comes not from refunding risk but from structuring it — precisely what Clean Law’s escrow oversight achieves.
When Transparency Meets Fairness in Insurance
When ASIC challenged a home insurance clause that told customers to “tell us if anything changes,” the Federal Court sided with the insurer. In ASIC v Auto & General (2024), Justice Jackman found the clause was not unfair, reaffirming that transparency means clarity of meaning, not perfection of expression. Clean Law’s Escrow Oversight model shows how legal design—not litigation—prevents such regulatory tension between fairness and structure.
Power in Possession vs Fairness in Oversight
When $18.6 million worth of furniture shipments were locked in Australian ports, Nick Scali turned to the Federal Court. In Nick Scali v Lion Global Forwarding (2024), the Court upheld a freight forwarder’s lien — confirming that possession can lawfully hold power. But Clean Law’s Escrow Oversight model shows a better way: how to keep both goods and fairness moving without risk.
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 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.