At Dundas Lawyers, we understand that the health and life science industry is facing unprecedented change and growth as a result of rapid technological advances. Our multi-disciplinary team have a breadth of experience and legal expertise that rages across a full spectrum of heal and life science matters.
Why choose Dundas Lawyers®?
Having exerted Blood Sweat and Years® since April 2010 we are the team you want on your side for the long term to act as the ‘bodyguard’ for your business in the health and life sciences industry. Some of the reasons clients choose Dundas Lawyers® include:
- our Uncommon business acumen;
- our Uncommon expertise in transactional, compliance and litigious matters;
- our Uncommon expertise forensic case preparation;
- our Uncommon customer focus;
- the fact that we don’t just know law, we know business!
- how we leverage our Uncommon Nous® to provide client centric solutions.
Considering getting a lawyer to advise your business?
For a confidential, no obligation initial telephone call to find out how we can help your business gain an uncommon advantage in the health and life sciences industry, please phone our team on either 1300 386 529 or 07 3221 0013.
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Legislation
Recent insights for health and life science businesses
-
Use of competitors trade marks for comparative advertising
Comparative advertising can be a powerful tool, but it must be done within the bounds of the law. Learn more about the legal implications of comparative advertising in Australia, including the case of GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited (No 2) [2018] FCA 1.
Recent Federal Court decisions regarding health and life science businesses
-
Abbey Laboratories Pty Ltd v Virbac (Australia) Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1488
PATENTS – application for an interlocutory injunction by patent holder – where generic recently launched – where patent holder is claiming for infringement – where patent alleged to be invalid – whether balance of convenience favours the grant of an injunction – where there has been substantial delay on the part of the patent holder…
-
McLean-Phillips v Carnival plc t/as P&O Cruises Australia (No 3) [2023] FCA 985
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for summary judgment, or alternatively to strike out the further amended statement of claim – whether the statement of claim now pleads the deficiencies in the services provided and a causal link between those deficiencies and the claimed loss – whether there is a reasonable prospect of establishing a breach…
-
Medibank Private Limited v Australian Information Commissioner [2024] FCA 117
PRIVACY – investigation by Australian Information Commissioner – breach of Australian Privacy Principles – own initiative investigation under s 40(2) of Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) – representative complaint under ss 36 and 38 of the Act – injunction to restrain investigation under representative complaint – separate Federal Court representative proceeding dealing with overlapping issues –…
