Recent Australian developments in the law of defamation have imposed increased evidentiary burdens on plaintiffs. Does this mean it is harder for plaintiffs to make a claim for defamation? Or is it now also easier for publishers of defamatory material to get away with it? This article addresses the changes and considers the implications for those wanting to bring a defamation claim.
Purpose over prescription? The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Rental Leases Act in Krajcar v Eastern Central Real Estate
The Supreme Court recently allowed a method of rent review which assessed the total value of a subdivided property and then split that amount between the multiple lot owners. While this appeared to sit outside the bases for rent review allowed by legislation, the Court found that it was permissible.
MST Lawyers is proud to announce that firm Principals Alicia Hill and Raynia Theodore have been included in the 2023 Edition of Best Lawyers™ in Australia.
The case of Watt v Shepherd (No 3)  FCA 1670 concerned a dispute that arose in the creation of a franchising business. It was found in earlier proceedings that Shepherd had made misleading and unconscionable representations to Watt regarding the franchising business. This case required the Court to consider how to calculate the loss and damage and what to award the mislead party.