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

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-5 of 5

In brief legal changes around the competition world

  • Norton Rose LLP
  • -
  • Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Italy, Singapore, South Africa, United Kingdom
  • -
  • July 16 2012

On 6 June 2012, new rules came into effect in Australia concerning information exchanges between banks

Monitoring your employees’ use of technology

  • Norton Rose LLP
  • -
  • Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Hong Kong, South Africa, United Kingdom
  • -
  • December 20 2011

It has become increasingly common for organisations to incorporate the use of social media into their business strategies

The legal implications of severe weather on mining contracts - force majeure events (4.43 min)

  • Norton Rose Canada LLP
  • -
  • Australia, Canada
  • -
  • April 19 2011

Robert Milbourne, Partner in the Norton Rose Australia office, and Dawn Whittaker, Partner, Ogilvy Renault discuss the legal implications of force majeure when severe weather events occur in the mining industry

Tort of inducing breach of contract the criteria for intent

  • Norton Rose LLP
  • -
  • Australia, Canada
  • -
  • September 20 2010

A recent Canadian decision by the New Brunswick Court of Appeal in SAR Petroleum et al v Peace Hills Trust Company 2010 NBCA 22 held that the tort of inducing breach of contract (or interfering with contractual relations) only arises if the breach was the desired end or means to an end

Do universities have secure rights in inventions made by their academic staff?

  • Norton Rose Canada LLP
  • -
  • Australia, Canada
  • -
  • September 21 2009

A recent decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (University of Western Australia v. Gray (Gray) puts into question the rights that universities may hold in inventions made by their academic staff