In the case of Dirt Devils Cleaning Solutions Pty Ltd v Jim’s Group Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 428, the New South Wales Supreme Court found that a franchisor was not liable for misleading and deceptive conduct in making purportedly ambiguous representations as to the contents of the Franchise Agreement where contractual documents were provided to the franchisor well in advance of execution and alongside an encouragement to obtain independent legal advice.

In Kalium Lakes Potash Pty Ltd (in liq) v Minister for Mines and Petroleum [2026] FCA 355, tenements disclaimed as onerous property were ordered to be revested to the plaintiffs so as to not prejudice creditors.

The case of Secretary, Department of Health, Disability and Ageing v AG Therapeutics Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 333 emphases the significance of public interest in allowing claims against companies in liquidation to proceed. Read our article to find out more.

The High Court in Zip Co Limited v Firstmac Limited [2026] HCA 16 recently clarified when you can (and can't) rely on the defence of honest concurrent use for would be infringers of registered trade marks. We discuss what happened in the case, what the court held, and give you practical lessons/tips for your protecting your brand. 

When does a director cross the line? Re Empireal explores the fine line between legitimate crisis management and breach of duty as a director, helping directors and insolvency practitioners understand what it takes to stay on the right side of it.

The Franchising Code of Conduct imposes an obligation of good faith on parties to a franchise agreement. The scope of this obligation can be particularly uncertain. This article breaks down how the courts have interpreted the requirement and what it means for your business.

Can a competitor lawfully copy your product design if your IP rights have expired? The recent Federal Court decision in Bodum AG v H.A.G. Import Corpn (Australia) Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 238 analysed this question –  here’s what you need to know.

In E&P Investments Limited v Keybridge Capital Limited [2026] VSCA 5, the Victorian Court of Appeal allowed an appeal overturning a decision to set aside a statutory demand.

The ACCC’s 2026–2029 Strategy (Strategy) reflects the regulator’s growing willingness to connect consumer protection with broader competition and productivity priorities, particularly in response to the mounting cost-of-living pressures and digital disruption impacting the economy.

The ACCC accepts an enforceable undertaking, effectively reversing a large part of a tech merger that had already settled.

While company directors will generally be held personally liable for insolvent trading, the safe harbour provisions under section 588GA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) provides protection, if certain conditions are met.

On 11 March 2026, the High Court of Australia handed down its highly anticipated decision in Taylor v Killer Queen LLC [2026] HCA 5, allowing the appeal of Australian fashion designer Katie Jane Taylor and preserving her registered trade mark "KATIE PERRY" for clothing following an application to cancel the mark by world-famous pop superstar Katy Perry.

When contracting parties agree that guarantees will also be provided, but the guarantor is not a party to the contract, is there an enforceable obligation to provide the guarantee? This article reports on the decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria of Boroondara City Council v ADCO Group Pty Ltd [2025] VSC 774 which had to consider this issue.

In the decision of Leon Cycle Pty Ltd v Hi5 Scooters Pty Ltd and Jamal Raad Raad, Her Honour Judge Burchell held that the Licensing Agreement between Leon Cycle and Hi5 Scooters was not a franchising arrangement for the purposes of the Franchising Code of Conduct.

The interests of a secured party are not unfailing, and appropriate attention should be given to ensuring that they are placed to receive the best outcome from administration. The extent of this susceptibility was highlighted in the recent Federal Court decision of Jones (Admin) v Realtek Semiconductor Corp Nuheara Ltd (Admins Apptd) (No 1) [2025].

Where an arrangement undermines the entitlements of a secured creditor, consideration should be had to the benefits conferred by the arrangement on other creditors broadly, particularly where the alternative is liquidation.

The recent Federal Court decision in ASIC v Darranda Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1015 highlights that where a franchisor designs the systems, documents or marketing used by franchisees, it may be held liable for regulatory breaches in its network, even without direct dealings with consumers.

#franchising #franchisorliability #ASIC #RegulatoryCompliance

The 28 August 2025 decision of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales in Netdeen Pty Ltd (t/as GJ Gardner Homes) v Lindfield NSW Pty Ltd[i] highlights several important considerations for franchisees and franchisors alike when changing a business structure.

Franchisors should have consideration to the impact that this may have on their existing contractual obligations. Franchisees need to be aware of whether their existing agreements allow for this possibility and consider this prior to entering into a franchise agreement.

The decision also highlights the importance of clear drafting in contracts, even where there has been ostensible agreement between the parties.

The Federal Court decision in Girchow Enterprises v Ultimate Franchising Group [2023] FCA 420 is a reminder that if you make financial claims about future profits or startup costs without a solid basis, you could be liable for misleading and deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law.

The ACCC has issued penalties to Cash Converters and Mobile Travel Agents for breaching the Franchising Code of Conduct by failing to update required information on the Franchise Disclosure Register.

Post the ASIC civil penalty proceedings against RAMS Financial Group over alleged systemic misconduct in its home loan operations a class action by former franchisees is now seeking to intervene in the ASIC matter, citing overlapping factual issues and concerns over reliance on Westpac’s internal findings.  #franchising #disclosure #franchisor_liability

The language used in a contract can significantly impact its enforceability. Reliance on the incorporation of an obligation to act in good faith will not necessarily result in an outcome sought. This was considered in the recent Supreme Court decision in Beecham Motors Pty Ltd v General Motors Holden Australia NSC Pty Ltd, which provides guidance for those with or considering a franchise agreement and the drafters of franchise agreements. #franchise_agreements #good_faith #franchisee_group_action