Power, Secrecy and Fairness: When Courts Must Withhold Information
High Court confirms strict secrecy rules in national-security appeals. The lesson for clients: when disclosure narrows, early pathway and cost alignment matter.
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.
The Moment Fairness Became a Legal Duty: Lessons from Kioa v West
Kioa v West established that administrative decision-makers must disclose adverse material before relying on it. This article explains the case and how Clean Law’s independence safeguards ensure fairness is protected early, with transparent oversight and no referral-fee conflicts.
When a Court’s Power Stops: Jurisdictional Error after Craig v South Australia
Craig v South Australia shows why judicial review cannot fix most courtroom errors—only jurisdictional ones. The High Court held that even if a trial judge misapplies fairness principles, it is usually an error within jurisdiction. This article explains the decision and how Clean Law’s two-lawyer structure prevents fairness issues being lost inside the litigation process.
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.