Appeals, Evidence and Escalating Costs: What Fox v Percy Still Teaches About Litigation Risk
A leading case on appellate review, Fox v Percy shows how factual error can prolong disputes and increase cost. The judgment reveals why traditional models make clients fund both settlement work and trial or appeal preparation — and how Clean Law’s one-path structure avoids that duplication.
When Public Interest Litigation Meets Cost Exposure: Lessons from the SW Forests Costs Ruling
A High Court ruling on costs in environmental litigation shows how quickly procedural shifts can expand financial risk. Even in public-interest cases, conventional cost rules apply. This case highlights the value of Clean Law’s one-path funding, which avoids duplicated work when disputes become more complex.
When Silence Speaks: The Jones v Dunkel Principle and the Hidden Cost of Uncertainty
A leading case on missing witnesses, Jones v Dunkel shows how uncertainty forces courts to rely on inference — and how that uncertainty can create dual-track legal costs. Clean Law’s one-path funding model is designed to prevent clients paying for both settlement and litigation simultaneously.
When Allegations Are Serious: Why the Briginshaw Principle Still Shapes Risk Today
A 1938 High Court case on adultery still shapes civil evidence law today. Briginshaw highlights how serious allegations create deep factual uncertainty — and how traditional legal models turn that uncertainty into dual-track costs. Clean Law’s one-path structure is built to contain that risk.
When Power Shifts Suddenly: What the Russian Federation Lease Case Teaches About Cost Risk
A High Court ruling on the termination of a diplomatic lease shows how legal rights can shift suddenly and create long, expensive disputes. The case illustrates why complex matters often lead clients to fund both settlement and trial preparation — and how Clean Law’s one-path cost alignment prevents that duplication.
Getting the Structure Right Before Costs Escalate: Lessons from Consolidated Media (2012)
The High Court in Consolidated Media shows how early structural decisions — even a single accounting entry — can determine a dispute’s direction. This article explains how Clean Law’s strategy-first, one-tender model helps clients choose the right lawyer and pathway from the start.
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 Good Intentions Aren’t Enough: What Bargwanna Teaches About Client Funds and Structural Safety
The High Court in Bargwanna confirmed that purpose must be protected by structure, not intentions. In litigation, the same applies: clients need models that keep their funds aligned to their legal goals. Clean Law’s one-path, cost-aligned system is built so your funds stay in your lane.
When Responsibility Turns on Structure: What RCF IV Reveals About Power, Liability and Cost Control
The RCF IV case shows how unclear structures shift financial responsibility. In litigation, cost alignment prevents similar risks: clients fund one path, not both, and incentives are aligned so delay harms us, not them.
When the Rules Are Hidden: Power, Fairness, and the Price of Legal Work
Clients often think they decide what they pay their lawyer — but without multiple tenders based on the same brief, the real cost is hidden. Clean Law’s one-path funding lets clients compare strategies without paying for duplicate work, making costs transparent before they commit.
When an Administrative Error Becomes a Legal Risk: Lessons from Travelex and Who Bears the Cost
A High Court ruling on administrative error shows how easily a mistaken allocation can shift financial risk onto the wrong party. Escrow prevents similar cost-shifting in litigation by keeping all funds client-controlled. Two independent lawyers, audited safeguards, and no referral fees keep strategy and budget clean.
Sharpcan and the Purpose Problem in Litigation: Why Objectives Shape Outcomes and Costs
A High Court case on tax offers a quiet warning for civil litigants: purpose determines outcomes. If your goal is economic resolution, structural alignment — including two independent lawyers with one-path funding — prevents purpose drift and cost spiral.
When Formal Control Isn’t Real Control: Lessons from Bywater for Modern Clients
The High Court’s decision in Bywater shows that real control sits with the person who actually makes the decisions. Many clients face the same risk when a single lawyer controls both strategy and trust funds. Clean Law’s escrow model returns practical control to the client, with independent oversight and no shared incentives.
When a Strategy Becomes the Risk: Lessons from Chevron
Chevron shows how a strategy chosen inside a single frame of reference can later become the risk itself. In civil disputes, clients face the same early-stage vulnerability. This article explains the case and how Clean Law’s fixed-fee, independent tendering system gives clients multiple strategies and costed proposals before committing to any litigation path.
When Discovery Becomes the Risk: Lessons from Otsuka v Generic Health (No 4)
A Federal Court decision refusing excessive late-stage discovery shows how quickly litigation costs can escalate without structural safeguards. This article explains the judgment, its relevance today, and how Clean Law’s cost-alignment model is designed to prevent similar risks.
When Technical Battles Escalate: Lessons from Rokt on Patent Litigation Costs and Clarity
The Rokt appeal shows how technical patent disputes can escalate quickly when experts, characterisation, and appeals collide. This article explains why the Full Court overturned the trial decision, and how Clean Law’s One-Path funding model helps clients avoid paying for both settlement and trial preparation in complex IP litigation.
When Trade Mark Litigation Becomes a Strategic Misstep
Pinnacle v Triangl shows how a six-week naming dispute became commercially disproportionate. The core failure was strategic — not assessing proportionality before litigating. Competitive tenders and transparent strategy comparison are structural safeguards built to prevent this.