When Privacy Silences a Billion-Dollar Dispute
When family wealth meets confidentiality and control, the High Court must decide who gets to tell the story. In Rinehart v Hancock Prospecting (2019), the Court upheld arbitration clauses that forced family trust disputes into private hearings. The case redefined how far confidentiality can reach in Australia’s commercial and family trust law — showing that, sometimes, even family truth stays behind closed doors.
When Confidentiality Silences the Truth: The Risk No Australian Expects
When Serco tried to stop its former detention officer from speaking to lawyers for a detained child, the Victorian Supreme Court ruled that justice comes before silence. In AS v Minister for Immigration (2016), Justice Forrest held that confidentiality clauses cannot be used to obstruct fair trial preparation. The decision remains a landmark for balancing corporate secrecy with public accountability.
When a Pause Can Save a Company
The High Court confirmed that a deed of company arrangement can lawfully pause creditor claims even when no property is available for distribution. Mighty River v Hughes [2018] HCA 38 explains why Part 5.3A allows a structured pause to preserve value, protect creditors, and ensure decisions are made with proper information.
When Silence Becomes a Legal Right
A court cannot force someone to speak simply because disclosure would make a case easier to run. In Crown Resorts Ltd v Zantran Pty Ltd [2020] FCAFC 1, the Full Court confirmed that confidentiality remains a legal right unless shown unlawful, and that efficiency in litigation cannot override substantive rights. This case explains why structural boundaries matter in the justice system and what Australians should understand about confidentiality, fairness and proper legal process.
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 “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.
Power That Can Be Used Against You
Minister for Public Works v Renard Constructions reshaped Australian contract law by confirming that broad contractual powers must be exercised reasonably and for a proper purpose. The case remains a leading authority on good faith, discretion, and fairness in commercial agreements.
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.
When Purpose Blurs, Protection Disappears: The Lesson of Esso v Commissioner of Taxation
The High Court in Esso v Commissioner of Taxation confirmed the dominant purpose test for legal professional privilege and showed how easily privilege unravels when legal and commercial work is mixed. The case remains a warning that clarity of purpose must be built into structure, not reconstructed after the fact.
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.