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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 483

Federal Court green lights dual distribution models: wins for Flight Centre and ANZ against ACCC price fixing allegations
  • Gilbert + Tobin
  • Australia
  • July 30 2015

Today, the Full Federal Court has allowed Flight Centre's appeal, finding that it did not engage in attempted price fixing. The ACCC has been ordered


Turf war
  • Gilbert + Tobin
  • Australia
  • July 29 2015

The recent Federal Court decision of Buchanan Turf Supplies v Registrar of Trade Marks (link) deals with the interaction between trade marks and


Court finds that the absence of execution and exchange does not affect the legally binding nature of the terms of a negotiated draft deed: Universal Music Australia Limited v Pavlovic 2015 NSWSC 791
  • Gilbert + Tobin
  • Australia
  • July 29 2015

In this case, GT acted for Universal Music Australia Limited which successfully argued that the terms of a proposed deed of release (which was the


A comprehensive dispute resolution regime can help avoid further dispute: Watpac Construction NSW Pty Limited v Taylor Thompson Whitting (NSW) Pty Ltd 2015 NSWSC 780
  • Gilbert + Tobin
  • Australia
  • July 29 2015

This case illustrates the importance of contracting parties either including a full set of provisions governing the expert dispute resolution process


A “gentlemen’s agreement” only binds a true gentleman: in the matter of Civil & Civic Infrastructure Pty Ltd 2015 NSWSC 770
  • Gilbert + Tobin
  • Australia
  • July 29 2015

This case demonstrates the importance of ensuring that commercial arrangements are legally binding on the parties. Referring to an arrangement as a


When will the Court convene a meeting to consider a scheme which an independent expert considers to be not fair, but still reasonable and in the best interests of shareholders?: in the matter of CIC Australia Limited 2015 NSWSC 557
  • Gilbert + Tobin
  • Australia
  • July 29 2015

The case provides some useful guidance on the difference between fairness and reasonableness of an offer under a scheme of arrangement, as well as


Accor AU & NZ Hospitality v Liv the potential cost of winning at all costs
  • Gilbert + Tobin
  • Australia
  • July 23 2015

A recent decision of the Federal Court, Accor Australia & New Zealand Hospitality Pty Ltd v Liv Pty Ltd (Accor) (link), reminds litigants of the


Does Australian law apply to video subscription games just because there are Australian users?
  • Gilbert + Tobin
  • Australia
  • July 20 2015

This is the question that a case currently before the Federal Court is likely to answer. Last year the ACCC brought proceedings against Valve


What’s a tweet worth?
  • Gilbert + Tobin
  • Australia
  • July 1 2015

Two are worth $80,000 according to Justice White, who yesterday handed down his decision in the defamation case brought by Treasurer Joe Hockey


Directors should carefully consider the terms of exclusion clauses in their D&O policies: Oz Minerals Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors v AIG Australia Ltd 2015 VSC 185
  • Gilbert + Tobin
  • Australia
  • June 26 2015

In this case, a major shareholder and board position exclusion in a D&O policy was found to have been enlivened where the relevant shareholder was a