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.