-
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…
-
AML/CTF compliance at Dundas Lawyers
From 1 July 2026, Australian law firms providing “designated legal services” must comply with expanded AML/CTF obligations. Read about the changes at Dundas Lawyers.
-
Benefits of properly prepared contracts
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has created opportunities for a quantum leap forward. It’s a shame that the same can’t be said for AI-generated legal contracts (AI Contracts). Dundas Lawyers has noticed an increase in the number of AI Contracts that our clients have been presented with from the ‘other side’ purporting to have been prepared by…
-
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…
-
Office of AI announced by Federal Government
On 15 July 2026, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (Prime Minister) announced by media release an expansion of the Federal Government’s (Government) existing artificial intelligence (AI) governance framework, including the establishment of a new Office of AI as well as plans to legislate national standards governing large-scale data centres, AI training and the use of Australian…
-
What amounts to use of a trade mark outside of Australia?
The case of Lamont v Malishus & Ors (No 4) [2019] FCCA 3206 (Lamont v Malishus) involved an action for infringement of a registered trade mark in Australia under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (TMA). This case raised several issues, including, whether using a word as part of a domain name constituted “use” as…
-
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…
-
Federal Court dismisses continuous disclosure claim
The Federal Court recently dismissed Australia Securities and Investment Commission’s (ASIC) claim in Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Nuix Limited [2026] FCA 490 (ASIC v Nuix) that Nuix Limited breached its obligations under section 674 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act). Nuix Limited (Nuix) successfully contested ASIC’s allegation that it had breached…
Legal insights
Make an enquiry
