Australia: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

This recent Federal Court decision serves as a timely reminder about privilege over third-party investigations and the documents created during such investigations which may be sought in subsequent litigation.

Discovery in litigation requires parties to identify, preserve and produce thousands of documents over expansive time periods, from emails to hard-copy records. Failing to properly disclose relevant documents can result in adverse costs orders, evidence exclusion and even contempt proceedings. Understanding the four key questions to ask of every document—whether it qualifies as a document, if you control it, its relevance, and whether it's privileged—can help navigate this burdensome and expensi

Two recent NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal decisions examine the limits of public access to government documents under the GIPA Act in the context of the controversial Bowdens Silver Project near Mudgee. The rulings address whether community groups can obtain cabinet materials, legal advice, and commercial-in-confidence briefings related to major development projects, establishing important precedents for balancing transparency against government and commercial protections.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has initiated Federal Court proceedings against Amazon AU, alleging that subscription contracts for Amazon Prime contain unfair terms allowing significant service changes...

A Federal Court decision examines whether liquidators can rely on accounting entries alone to pursue debt recovery, or whether suspicious book entries require stronger evidence to overcome a nil balance shown in company records. The case highlights critical evidentiary thresholds for insolvency practitioners when challenging transactions made shortly before liquidation.

Frustration of contract is widely misunderstood in Australian law, with many assuming contracts automatically end when circumstances become difficult or expensive. This guide examines the strict legal test applied by Australian courts, explaining when supervening events truly discharge contractual obligations and why financial hardship, increased costs, and commercial difficulties typically fall short of the frustration threshold.

Carroll & O'Dea Lawyers explores how trauma informed practice transforms legal representation for personal injury clients who have experienced serious physical and psychological injuries. The firm examines the delicate balance between delivering strong advocacy and treating trauma survivors with dignity, respect and empathy throughout complex legal processes.

A Federal Court decision examines whether liquidators can rely on accounting entries alone to pursue debt recovery, or whether suspicious book entries require stronger evidence to overcome a nil balance shown in company records. The case highlights critical evidentiary thresholds for insolvency practitioners when challenging transactions made shortly before liquidation.

Frustration of contract is widely misunderstood in Australian law, with many assuming contracts automatically end when circumstances become difficult or expensive. This guide examines the strict legal test applied by Australian courts, explaining when supervening events truly discharge contractual obligations and why financial hardship, increased costs, and commercial difficulties typically fall short of the frustration threshold.

Recent Australian Public Service census data reveals a growing trend in flexible work arrangements, supported by new enterprise agreement provisions. Two landmark Fair Work Commission decisions in Naden and Westpac now provide critical guidance on how employers must handle flexible work requests, highlighting the mandatory requirements and potential consequences of non-compliance that could result in orders granting employee requests even when business grounds exist for refusal.

The High Court of Australia held that India had not waived sovereign immunity in respect of enforcement proceedings by ratifying the New York Convention...

The case provides clear confirmation of the principles applied in determining whether a duty of care exists and establishing negligence.