Power, History and Fairness: When “Use” of Crown Land Becomes the Turning Point
The High Court in La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council v Quarry Street [2025] HCA 32 confirmed that Crown land is claimable under s 36(1)(b) of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act unless the Crown itself is using the land at the relevant time. The Court rejected approaches that focused on third-party occupation or the presence of infrastructure, holding that the statutory test turns solely on Crown use. This matters for clients because disputes involving land, infrastructure and public records often hinge on narrow statutory terms, and late-stage interpretation shifts can change the litigation pathway and its cost exposure. Cost-alignment (one-path funding) helps clients manage this uncertainty by ensuring they fund only the pathway they ultimately take, rather than preparing for settlement and litigation at the same time.
Power, Penalties and Fairness: When One Post Counts Once
The High Court in Laming v Electoral Commissioner [2025] HCA 31 held that an unauthorised electoral communication posted online constitutes a single contravention when it is disseminated to the public under s 321D of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The Court rejected an approach that multiplied penalties with each view of the post, noting that dissemination occurs when material is made available to the public, not each time it is opened. This matters for clients because digital conduct is increasingly central to regulatory disputes, and cost exposure often depends on how legislation treats online behaviour. When penalty risk turns on statutory interpretation rather than platform metrics, cost-alignment (one-path funding) helps clients fund only the pathway they ultimately take, rather than paying for both settlement work and litigation preparation at once.
Power, Structure and Fairness: When One Payment Serves Multiple Purposes
In ATO v PepsiCo [2025] HCA 30, the High Court held that part of the concentrate price paid by an Australian bottler was, in substance, consideration for the use of PepsiCo and SVC’s intellectual property. The Court found the concentrate supply and IP licences formed a single integrated product, and part of the payment “must to some extent” have moved the grant of the licences. Because that portion of the consideration related to brand and formulation rights, it was treated as a royalty for Australian tax law purposes. For clients, the case highlights a structural risk: when payments serve multiple commercial functions, regulators may recharacterise them, shifting the dispute’s trajectory and cost exposure. Cost-alignment (one-path funding) helps clients navigate these shifts by ensuring they fund only the pathway they ultimately take, not both settlement work and litigation preparation simultaneously.
Power, Workforce Choices and Fairness: Redeployment After Redundancy
The High Court in Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd v Bartley confirms that, when deciding whether a dismissal is a genuine redundancy, the Fair Work Commission may consider reasonable changes to how an employer allocates work across employees and contractors. The Court held that redeployment does not require an existing vacancy and that s 389(2) permits a broad inquiry into whether redeployment would have been reasonable in all the circumstances. This matters for modern enterprises that rely on blended workforces: redeployment outcomes can turn on contract flexibilities, anticipated workload changes and the practical availability of contractor-performed tasks. For clients, the strategic risk is financial — the dispute’s trajectory and cost exposure may shift as tribunals examine hypothetical pathways. Structuring matters through one-path funding helps ensure that when these evaluative assessments expand, cost-alignment keeps the client’s position clear and controlled.
Power, Funding and Fairness: When Class Actions Meet Professional Conduct Rules
High Court blocks percentage-based payments to solicitors in class actions. Clients face cost-incentive risks, making early pathway and funding clarity essential.
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.
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.