Blog

For non-lawyers, there is often a notion that the law is clear, cohesive and logical. Sometimes the course of cases, from the lower courts to the higher courts, show how even judges can form different views on the same facts, and in applying the same legal tests as one judgement is reversed by another. One could be forgiven for thinking that judges are doing themselves into a job, and that by writing and formulating legal tests in the way it is done the occasion is set for another judge or the same judges having to interpret the issue again in the future on different facts. In truth, the law is quite complex, and reasonable minds may simply differ on what the law says and this is a natural part of its evolution rather than a point of criticism. Vicarious liability probably illustrates this better than any other area of the law.

The article examines leading lawyer guides in Australia, highlighting the complexities and pitfalls in their ranking methodology. Written by an unranked lawyer, it questions the objectivity of these guides, citing challenges in subjective assessments, confidentiality constraints, peer review biases, and the odd ranking of lawyers who never appear in reported cases. The piece calls for a discerning approach to these guides, recognizing their limitations.

The proliferation of AI tools in the legal sector, with their promise of affordable and easier access to legal advice, has been met with mixed results. Despite their intention to simplify legal language, these tools often oversimplify, leading to critical omissions and potential legal pitfalls. A case in point is the removal of essential "in writing" clauses in contracts, which could result in serious contractual breaches if misunderstood. This raises questions about the liability of both users and AI providers, the latter potentially facing claims of misrepresentation, negligence, or breach of the Australian Consumer Law. Far from rendering lawyers redundant, these issues highlight the enduring value of the profession and the necessity for stringent regulation in legal tech. Providers of AI legal tools should be wary; a basic lesson in law may be on their horizon.

In this blog, we explore the risks and circumstances where personal cost orders may be made against solicitors in litigation cases. We discuss the practical steps that lawyers can take to limit their exposure to personal cost orders and protect their interests. By understanding the factors that courts focus on and the statutory provisions that apply, lawyers can navigate these risks more effectively. We also highlight the importance of seeking separate representation and providing written documentation to support their case. By following these steps, lawyers can minimize the financial and reputational consequences of personal cost orders.

In this landmark Supreme Court case, Hunt Leather Pty Ltd and Ancio Investments Pty Ltd brought a class action against Transport for NSW regarding the construction of the Sydney Light Rail and its impact on properties. While the lead plaintiffs, Hunt Leather and Ancio, succeeded in proving substantial and unreasonable interference with their businesses, individual business owners were unable to establish the same. The case raises important considerations for litigation lawyers regarding the elements of nuisance claims and the assessment of damages.

Sometimes gifts and transactions involving elderly persons can be set aside because of a lack of capacity, undue influence or where the transaction is unconscionable. Read to find out more.

Explore the legal intricacies of vicarious liability as the High Court delves into the Schokman case, meticulously scrutinizing its application within workplace incidents. This thought-provoking legal battle revolves around Aaron Schokman, a former competitive swimmer with unique medical challenges, and CCIG Investments Pty Ltd's alleged breach of duty. Delve into this case to gain valuable insights into the evolving parameters of vicarious liability and how it influences the responsibility of employers for their employees' actions.

This article delves into the contentious issue of class action waiver clauses in consumer contracts and their potential for fairness. Focusing on the Ruby Princess Litigation, where a passenger contested the enforceability of such a clause, the article examines the arguments and legal perspectives involved. It raises an interesting question about the use of differential pricing as a means to make class action waiver clauses fair. By offering consumers the choice between two contracts—one allowing representative proceedings and the other waiving that right—this approach aims to ensure fairness by accurately reflecting the value associated with each option. The article explores key aspects of the debate, such as extra-territorial reach and legal scrutiny, and discusses the ongoing legal proceedings and potential implications.

Legal professional privilege, a vital concept in the legal realm, plays a crucial role in maintaining the confidentiality of specific communications associated with legal advice or services. In this article, we delve into the intricacies of legal professional privilege, its various types, and its implications, focusing particularly on the perspective of in-house lawyers.What is Legal Professional Privilege?