A judge overseeing a superannuation class action against two Westpac units that settled for $30 million has flagged the possibility of appointing a contradictor to examine the litigation funder’s claimed cut of the settlement, which includes a deduction of over $1 million to cover the costs of after-the-event insurance.
Facebook has agreed to pay a $20 million penalty for misleading consumers by representing that its discontinued Onavo Protect mobile app would keep users’ personal activity data private, when in fact it was being collected for commercial use.
A litigation funder that bankrolled a photographer’s unsuccessful copyright claim against CoreLogic has appealed a ruling ordering if to pay indemnity costs to the property data analytics company.
Notional GST payments by local councils under an intergovernmental agreement with the Commonwealth are a voluntary act, not an impermissible tax in breach of the Constitution, the High Court has ruled.
The Australian Federal Police will investigate concerns that restricted material produced during the criminal trial of accused rapist Bruce Lehrmann was leaked to select media outlets.
Optus has agreed to rebrand products that Boost Tel claimed had infringed on its trade marks, in a settlement of the rivals’ intellectual property spat.
A judge overseeing five lawsuits seeking compensation on behalf of AFL players who allegedly suffered brain injuries has set the stage for a class action beauty parade, as one law firm flags a possible sixth action.
A shareholder class action against KPMG and the directors of defunct mining company CuDeco is seeking insurance information and a limited number of documents from the directors ahead of mediation, to avoid a “train wreck” of a case, a court has heard.
The judge weighing the legal costs sought to be deducted from a $300 million settlement in pelvic mesh class actions against Johnson & Johnson has questioned Shine Lawyers’ bid to make group members pay $32 million in interest incurred on a loan the firm took out at “credit card” rates.
Skincare giant L’Oreal has lost the rights to use a 23-year-old trade mark for branding some of its products, after a competitor successfully campaigned IP Australia to strike it from the register for non-use.