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.
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 Two People Sign the Same Contract but Mean Two Different Things
When two businessmen signed a Mandarin contract without lawyers, they thought “equity” meant land. The Court of Appeal in Sui v Jiang (2021) showed why translation gaps can turn million-dollar ventures into years of litigation. The Court reaffirmed that commercial certainty depends not on language, but on the law’s view of intention — and how fairness survives imperfect words.
When “Becoming a Contractor” Becomes the Law: ZG Operations v Jamsek
For 30 years, two truck drivers delivered lighting goods for the same company. When they were told to “become contractors” — buying their own trucks — they kept working as before. But decades later, the High Court ruled they were never employees. In ZG Operations v Jamsek (2022), the Court drew a sharp line: when a contract is genuine, not a sham, its words decide the relationship. The case reshaped what “independence” means in Australian work law.
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.
When a Licence Almost Took a Brand Away From Its Owner
A licensing agreement for cheddar and butter was later argued to stop Bega from using its own name on new products. In Fonterra v Bega (2021), the Court confirmed the licence extended only to the products it defined. The decision highlights the power of precise wording in determining who controls a brand’s growth.
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.
A Lease That Behaved Like a Sale And a Clause That Shifted Everything
Ecosse v Gee Dee clarifies that ambiguous contract terms are interpreted by their commercial purpose, not their literal wording. The High Court held that a reasonable businessperson’s understanding governs long-term agreements.