We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Kione Johnson King & Wood Mallesons

Results 1 to 5 of 9



Raising the bar – the English Court of Appeal expands the scope of liability for the provision of financial product advice *

United Kingdom - December 20 2012
The English Court of Appeal’s unanimous decision in Rubenstein v HSBC Bank plc [2012] EWCA Civ 1184 (Rubenstein) suggests that financial advisers will be held to an increasingly high standard in relation to the provision of financial advice, particularly where there is a failure to take account of the investor’s personal objectives, financial situation and needs.


There is sauce for the gander: Pathway Investments does not establish principles of universal application *

Australia - December 19 2012
Further to our previous review of the Victorian Court of Appeal's decision in National Australia Bank Limited v Pathway Investments Pty Ltd [2012] VSCA…

Co-authors: Caroline Rodgers, Moira Saville.


New consultation on proposed amendments to the Insurance Contracts Act *

Australia - November 29 2012
On 28 November 2012, Treasury released an exposure draft of the Insurance Contracts Amendment Bill 2013 (Cth) (2013 Bill) for public consultation.

Co-authors: Philip Ward.


Stitching it up? Risks of a failure to bind all beneficiaries of an insurance policy to a settlement agreement *

Australia - November 2 2012
In CHU Underwriting Agencies Pty Ltd v Wise [2012] WASCA 123, the Western Australian Court of Appeal has provided some useful reminders to insurers of the need to ensure that any settlement agreement binds all parties to whom the insurance cover extends – that is, including by application of section 48 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth).


No sauce for the goose – why don’t class action group members have to give discovery? The Victorian Court of Appeal affirms an order refusing discovery by group members *

Australia - October 2 2012
Class actions are unique as aside from the representative applicant, generally the group members who sit behind them do not have to give discovery of documents in relation to their claims.

Co-authors: Caroline Rodgers, Moira Saville.


Next »