-
AI compliance programs: one size does not fit all
Australia does not have any standalone legislation addressing how businesses can safely implement Artificial Intelligence (AI). Use of AI by Australian businesses is, however, regulated, not by a patchwork combination of Federal and State legislation, industry-specific legislation and standards, professional body rules and guidance issued by government departments and other regulators. This article discusses the…
-
Mere puffery vs misleading and deceptive conduct – where is the line
In the case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54 (ACCC v TPG), the High Court of Australia (High Court) drew a distinction between mere puffery and representations with the intention of marketing. This article explores the decision in ACCC v TPG and the distinction between puffery and…
-
Contractual and equitable obligations of confidence
This is an update to the article “Full Court clarifies confidentiality of supplier and contact info” published by Dundas Lawyers on 24 February 2026. On 20 April 2026, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Court) allowed an appeal in the case of New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC…
-
AI evidence misleading Court: Ba v Sterling Parts Australia
On 17 June 2026, Symons J delivered judgment in the case of Ba v Sterling Parts Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FedCFamC2G 1245 (Ba v Sterling Parts). Ba v Sterling Parts was a proceeding brought by Weiman Ba (Applicant) in the second division of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Court). Symons J dismissed…
-
Drag-along provisions challenged in Mobile Asset Case
The case of Mobile Asset Holdings Ltd [2026] ATP 7 (Mobile Asset Case) concerned a proposed special resolution to insert drag-along and tag-along rights into the company constitution of Mobile Asset Holdings Ltd ACN 614 791 043 (Mobile Asset).[1] Ultimately, the Australian Takeovers Panel (Panel) decided that Mobile Asset could not hold a general meeting…
-
Breach of duties as oppression – Our Jim & Felicja Superfund v Lindenfels
The case of Our Jim & Felicja Superfund Pty Ltd as trustee for the Jim & Felicja Superannuation Fund v Lindenfels Pte Ltd [2026] FCA 307 (Superfund v Lindenfels) is a reminder that shareholder oppression under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001(Cth) (Corporations Act) must be established on its own terms, particularly where a…
-
What ASIC’s new DIN laws mean for Australian directors
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has announced that, from 1 July 2027, obligations surrounding director identification numbers (Director IDs) will change. The amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) which are set to commence will require that companies provide Director IDs to ASIC. This article will briefly explain the function of…
-
WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context
The recent case of WIJOAV Services Pty Ltd v Goldstone Private Equity Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 622 (WIJOAV v Goldstone) involved a claim of shareholder oppression under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act). The case established that a shareholder in a private equity fund may be oppressed by a co-investor where…
-
Mere puffery vs misleading and deceptive conduct – where is the line?
In the case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54 (ACCC v TPG), the High Court of Australia (High Court) drew a distinction between mere puffery and representations with the intention of marketing. This article explores the decision in ACCC v TPG and the distinction between puffery and…
Commercial law
Make an enquiry
