When “Giving In” Isn’t an Agreement: Evidence, Assumptions, and the High Court’s Course in ACCC v Hutchinson
ACCC v Hutchinson confirms that capitulating under pressure is not an unlawful “understanding”. The High Court required proof of communication and mutual commitment. This article explains the case and how Clean Law’s one-path funding and tender-consolidation process give clients clarity on strategy, risk and cost before committing to litigation.
Time, Power and Fairness: The Discipline Behind Snell v Glatis
When negotiations drag, risk rises. Snell v Glatis (No 4) shows how the Court demands discipline, transparency and evidence before granting more time. For businesses, this case is a warning: delay without justification erodes trust — and costs money.
When Power Meets Fairness: Why House v R Still Governs Good Judgment
Sentencing discretion is one of the quiet engines of fairness in Australian law. House v R (1936) remains the compass: it tells courts when to intervene, and shows businesses today why documented reasoning, proportional decisions and transparent processes matter more than ever.
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.
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.
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.
When Authority Blurs, Risk Explodes: The Lesson of Pacific Carriers v BNP Paribas
A bank officer signed an indemnity she was not authorised to sign, and the High Court held the bank to the appearance of authority it created. Pacific Carriers v BNP Paribas shows how unclear internal systems can expose others to major loss — and why visible, reliable authority is essential in any modern legal or commercial decision.
Clarity Without Guesswork: What Mount Bruce Mining v Wright Prospecting Teaches Every Australian About Contracts
A decades-old mining agreement triggered a $130 million dispute because key phrases were read differently years later. The High Court restored commercial common sense: contracts mean what reasonable businesspeople would understand in their proper context. This case shows how clarity of structure protects everyone — and how ambiguity grows costly when decisions rely on a single interpretation.
When a Bank Can Charge You Even When You Did Nothing Wrong
When the High Court decided Andrews v ANZ (2012), it reshaped the law on penalties — proving that a fee can be unlawful even without a contractual breach. In today’s business world of automatic surcharges and hidden “service fees,” that principle still stands guard. Fair charging isn’t just a moral duty; it’s a legal one.