In The News
Test
Test
I’m afraid AI can’t do that: Law firms say smart tech uses limited
Holden dealers reject GM’s bleak alternate reality in class action
Lawyer’s defamation case fails serious harm test, judge finds
Nine, News Corp defeat defamation suits over Central Coast crime coverage
Zip offered Firstmac $4M to settle trade mark suit
High Court rejects Qantas appeal in ground crew sacking case
High Court to rule on reach of workplace law in high-stakes Qantas case
Mosaic Brands boss told GM paying $275K bonus would land him in jail, suit says

Property owners are fighting arguments that claims in a class action over allegedly combustible cladding do not fall under a $190 million insurance policy’s definition of property damage, saying installing the cladding was like “dousing one’s house in kerosene”.

Subscribe to Lawyerly to access this article.

Already a subscriber?
Lost your password?

For information on rights and reprints, contact subscriptions@lawyerly.com.au