Legal insights

  • Designer wins High Court case over Katy Perry trade mark dispute

    Designer wins High Court case over Katy Perry trade mark dispute

    On 11 March 2026, the High Court of Australia (High Court) delivered its judgment in the case of Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC [2026] HCA 5 (Taylor v Killer Queen), ending the seventeen (17) year trade mark dispute between pop star Katy Perry and Australian fashion designer Katie Jane Taylor. In a 3:2 majority decision,…

  • Hylepin v Doshay: excuses for shareholder oppression?

    Hylepin v Doshay: excuses for shareholder oppression?

    On 19 November 2021, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia published its decision in the case of Hylepin Pty Ltd v Doshay Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 201 (Hylepin v Doshay).  Hylepin v Doshay was appealed from the decision in Hylepin Pty Ltd v Doshay Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1370 that concerned a…

  • Federal Court publishes GenAI Practice Note

    Federal Court publishes GenAI Practice Note

    On 16 April 2026, the Federal Court of Australia (Court) published the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI) (Cth) (GenAI Practice Note). 

  • ACCC publishes guidance on cash acceptance industry codes

    ACCC publishes guidance on cash acceptance industry codes

    From 1 January 2026, new cash acceptance obligations have commenced under industry codes applying to supermarkets and fuel retailers, overseen by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).  In March 2026, the ACCC published guidance on these newly enforced regulations, reminding retailers to consider their obligations before penalties apply on 1 July 2026.

  • Franchisors must provide franchisees a reasonable opportunity to make a ROI

    Franchisors must provide franchisees a reasonable opportunity to make a ROI

    Recent reforms to the Franchising Code of Conduct introduced a new obligation requiring franchisors to give franchisees a reasonable opportunity to make a return on their investment (ROI).  This change reflects concern that some franchise arrangements required franchisees to make substantial upfront investments without a realistic opportunity to make a return on this investment.

  • Valuing ESS Interests

    Valuing ESS Interests

    A company, whether listed or unlisted, can grant its employees an interest in its equity (ESS Interest), including through an employee share scheme (ESS) or employee share option plan (ESOP).  There are restrictions contained in both the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) and Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (ITAA) that determine the price…

  • ESS vs ESOP – what’s the difference?

    ESS vs ESOP – what’s the difference?

    Employee share schemes (ESS) and employee share option plans (ESOP) are commonly used by corporations to incentivise employees and align performance with company growth by providing them with an interest in the company.  While the terms are often used interchangeably, they have distinct legal and structural differences under Australian law.  This article explains the key…

  • AI businesses should have duty of care

    AI businesses should have duty of care

    In a recent interview with InnovationAus.com, Victorian Senator Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Senator) emphasised the need to adopt digital duty of care laws for artificial intelligence (AI) companies.[1]  As a representative of the ALP and former AI start-up founder, the Senator calls for the proposed digital duty of care to apply to AI companies.  If implemented, the…

  • Disputed ESOP – Selak v National Tiles Co Pty Ltd

    Disputed ESOP – Selak v National Tiles Co Pty Ltd

    In the case of Selak v National Tiles, the Vic Supreme Court considered whether a company breached an option agreement governed by the terms of an Employee Share Option Plan (ESOP) by requiring an option holder to execute an undisclosed shareholders’ agreement as a condition of exercising vested options.  

Make an enquiry

Send this to a friend