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 Safety Assessments Go Wrong: The High Court’s Course Correction in KMD v CEO (Department of Health NT)
KMD v CEO (Health NT) confirms that non-cooperation with experts does not invalidate a supervision-order review. The High Court ruled that appellate courts must apply statutory criteria using the most current evidence. This article explains the decision and how Clean Law’s independence safeguards protect fairness in complex decision-making processes.
When Trust Property Moves in the Dark: Fiduciary Limits After Naaman v Jaken
Naaman v Jaken clarifies that a successor trustee does not owe fiduciary duties to a former trustee, even where trust assets are dissipated. This article explains the ruling and how Clean Law’s independence safeguards prevent harm caused by undisclosed or conflicted decision-making.
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 Public Interest Litigation Meets Cost Exposure: Lessons from the SW Forests Costs Ruling
A High Court ruling on costs in environmental litigation shows how quickly procedural shifts can expand financial risk. Even in public-interest cases, conventional cost rules apply. This case highlights the value of Clean Law’s one-path funding, which avoids duplicated work when disputes become more complex.
Getting the Structure Right Before Costs Escalate: Lessons from Consolidated Media (2012)
The High Court in Consolidated Media shows how early structural decisions — even a single accounting entry — can determine a dispute’s direction. This article explains how Clean Law’s strategy-first, one-tender model helps clients choose the right lawyer and pathway from the start.
When Revenue and Purpose Pull in Different Directions: Incentive Design Lessons from Word Investments (2008)
The High Court in Word Investments showed that commercial activity does not override charitable purpose when incentives are structurally aligned. This article explains how incentive design shapes legal character.
When Activities Look Mixed: Why Role-Separation Matters in Charity and Business Structures
Word Investments shows why role-separation and transparent financial pathways matter. Mixed activities can be mistaken for mixed purposes unless structure keeps each function visible and independent.
When Charity and Commerce Intersect: Governance Lessons from Word Investments (2008)
The High Court in Word Investments confirmed that commercial activities do not disqualify a charity—if governance structures keep its purposes confined. This article explains why purpose clarity is a structural issue, not just an intention.
When Power Meets Purpose: The Fairness Test in Wayde v NSW Rugby League
When governing bodies or boards exercise broad discretionary power, the question quickly becomes: where is the line between legitimate strategy and unfair prejudice?
Wayde v NSW Rugby League shows how courts weigh fairness, discretion and the limits of oppression claims — lessons that matter for every modern leader facing conflict between individual interests and organisational purpose.
When Set-Off Meets Fairness: Insights from Metal Manufactures v Morton
The High Court’s decision in Metal Manufactures v Morton closed the door on creditors using statutory set-off to shield unfair preference payments. This case note unpacks the Court’s reasoning, why the set-off argument failed, and what today’s businesses can learn from a judgment built around fairness, transparency, and the proper handling of money moving in both directions. It also shows how Clean Law’s escrow safeguards reflect the very principles the High Court reinforced.
Fairness in the Flow of Money: Lessons from Bryant v Badenoch
The High Court’s decision in Bryant v Badenoch reshaped the law of unfair preferences by rejecting the peak-indebtedness rule and reaffirming the deeper purpose of the running-account principle: to look at the relationship as a whole. This case note explains the judgment’s logic and why it matters for modern business relationships, especially where finances move back and forth in ways that can mask underlying vulnerabilities. It also shows how Clean Law’s escrow safeguards reflect the same fairness architecture the Court reinforced.
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 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.
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.
The Moment a Lawful Contract Collided with an Unforeseen Reality
Codelfa Construction v State Rail Authority is the leading Australian case on frustration. The High Court held that an unforeseen injunction made contractual performance radically different from what both parties assumed.
The Interest Rate That Was Never Really Fixed
This High Court decision shows how a borrower can be misled about a fixed interest rate yet suffer no legally recognised loss. Marks v GIO reveals a structural gap between expectation and compensable harm — and why financial clarity matters before risk materialises.