What “Just and Reasonable” Really Means for Survivors: The High Court’s Guidance in DZY v Christian Brothers
DZY v Christian Brothers confirms that courts can set aside historical child-abuse settlements if it is just and reasonable — but evidence must show why the survivor renounced their rights. This article explains the ruling and how Clean Law’s independence safeguards and consolidated tender process give clients clarity about strategy, risk and cost before making irreversible decisions.
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 “Nothing Was Done” But GST Still Applied: Lessons from Commissioner of Taxation v MBI Properties Pty Ltd (2014)
The High Court’s decision in MBI Properties shows that even passive continuation of a lease can constitute a new supply for GST purposes. This short explainer outlines the risk and how Clean Law’s independence safeguards prevent similar oversights.
When Rules Look Like Technology: Aristocrat and the Risk of Paying for Schemes
Aristocrat highlights how schemes can look technical while changing nothing. Escrow oversight ensures clients never fund that dynamic.
When “Not Warning” Isn’t Misleading: The High Court on Contingent Risks and Commercial Silence
The High Court in Lundbeck held Sandoz had no duty to warn of a contingent patent risk. Clean Law’s independence safeguards help clients avoid blind spots created by conflicted advice.
Who Has the Right to Sue? The High Court’s Warning on Standing and Role Confusion
The High Court’s Lundbeck ruling shows how unclear roles can erase expected litigation rights. Structural independence — not goodwill — prevents similar standing risks.
When Timetables Break: Power, Procedure and Fairness in Australasian Memory Pty Ltd v Brien
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.
When One Missed Deadline Decides Everything
A High Court case showing that missing the 21-day statutory demand deadline removes the court’s jurisdiction entirely — and how Clean Law’s cost-alignment structure reduces the systemic delay risks that lead to this outcome.
When Tax Debts Become Insolvency Ammunition: Lessons from Broadbeach on Process, Power and Cost Risk
The Broadbeach decision shows how tax assessments can support statutory demands even while review is pending. This article explains the ruling and how one-path funding is built to stop clients paying for multiple litigation paths at once.
When Directors Miss the Warning Signs: Insolvency, Oversight, and the Cost of Delay
A landmark insolvent trading case showing how delay and unclear internal roles deepened financial exposure. Explains how Clean Law’s one-path cost-alignment model prevents similar risks.
When Pressure Stops Being “Just Business”: Lessons from the Equiticorp Case
A complex tax-avoidance scheme triggered massive liabilities after directors failed to question conflicted decisions. Independent role separation helps prevent similar governance failures.
When Power Shifts the Goalposts: The Enduring Warning of Bailey v MDU
When professionals rely on defence organisations or insurers, they assume protection will be there when things go wrong. Bailey v Medical Defence Union shows why that assumption can fail — and why clear contracts, stable rights, and client-side oversight remain essential today.
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.