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 a 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
-
Native Extracts Pty Ltd v Plant Extracts Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 106
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – whether information about extraction machine was confidential information owned by company where second respondent was former director – where machine had been identified by directors as suitable for proposed business prior to incorporation of company – where second respondent was informed about machine by third party on unrestricted basis – where evidence…
-
Munkara v Santos NA Barossa Pty Ltd (No 3) [2024] FCA 9
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW – where the respondent holds a pipeline licence issued under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (Cth) authorising it to construct a 262km long gas export pipeline in the Timor Sea – where the applicants are Aboriginal people from the Tiwi Islands – where the pipeline would pass the west…
-
RB (Hygiene Home) Australia Pty Ltd v Proctor & Gamble Australia Pty Limited (No 3) [2023] FCA 1650
COSTS – determination of appropriate costs order – where application successful in part – where cross-claim successful – where applicant rejected offer of compromise
