Is the new tort for serious invasion of privacy relevant to Government?

By: Clare McNamara and John McPherson From 10 June 2025, serious invasions of privacy are actionable as a new statutory tort in Australia. The new tort was introduced by addition of a new Schedule 2 to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). Note that Schedule 2 was inserted into the Privacy Act 1988 by the Privacy and Other […]

Privacy Awareness Week 2025: Your privacy and reporting duties following a data breach or cyber incident

By: Kieran Doyle, Nicole Gabryk, Rebecca Wilson and Jordan Chen This Privacy Awareness Week, we’re taking a closer look at the privacy and regulatory reporting obligations businesses must navigate following a data breach or cyber incident. Recent reforms to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), new cyber security legislation, and other regulatory developments have introduced a […]

Thailand’s new law expands cybercrime prevention and enforcement powers

By: Ian Johnston, Sorawat Wongkaweepairot and Nuttida Doungwirote At a glance Expanded reporting requirements now apply to digital asset businesses, aligning them with traditional financial institutions. Banks and service providers must proactively block or close accounts linked to blacklisted individuals. A new central cybercrime authority has broad powers to investigate, suspend transactions, and publish offender […]

New tort of serious invasion of privacy

By: Richard Leder, Georgie Austin, Nicole Gabryk, Zoë Burchill and Isabelle Ferrali At a glance From 10 June 2025, serious invasions of privacy will become legally actionable in Australia. This marks a major reform, introducing a new privacy tort that allows individuals to bring claims for either intrusions upon seclusion (such as unauthorised surveillance) or […]

High Court of Australia endorses liability cap under Montreal Convention

By: James Cooper, Francois Guillot and Ethan Naylor Evans v Air Canada [2025] HCA 22 At a glance The High Court found Air Canada had not waived its right to limit liability under Article 21(2) of the Montreal Convention, despite language in its Tariff. A waiver of valuable legal rights requires clear, unambiguous wording – […]

The new Aged Care Act 2024 (Cth): What do “responsible persons” and their insurers need to know?

By: Yen Seah and Samantha Younane At a glance The Aged Care Act 2024 (Cth) comes into effect on 1 November 2025. The Act imposes a new statutory duty on directors and other persons responsible for the executive decisions of aged care providers. This includes those who have authority or responsibility for (or significant influence […]

Court of Appeal gives Victoria the “green light” for subrogated cladding recovery actions

By: Sarah Metcalfe State of Victoria (Department of Transport and Planning) v L.U. Simon Builders Pty Ltd & Ors At a glance In the subrogated recovery action brought by the State of Victoria against LU Simon and its directors in the County Court of Victoria (CI-23-03724) LU Simon argued that the State could not be […]

Proposed ban on non-compete clauses: What employers and insurers need to know

By: Sian Gilbert and Charli Kearney At a glance The Albanese Government plans to ban non-compete clauses for employees earning under $175,000, with changes expected to take effect in 2027. Businesses will need to consider stronger confidentiality and non-solicitation clauses, and tailor restraints for senior or high-risk roles. The change may reduce some litigation but […]

Decommissioning offshore installations in Australia: Legal and contractual issues

By: Naraya Lamart and Ollie van der Zee At a glance Decommissioning is a necessary and planned stage in the life of every offshore petroleum project, requiring consideration from the outset and ongoing development throughout the project’s life. Over the next 50 years, Australia is expected to see USD40.5 billion in offshore decommissioning activity, primarily […]

Whodunnit: Labour hire and vicarious liability

By: Angela Winkler and Chad Farah De Martin & Gasparini Pty Ltd v Bartlett [2025] NSWCA 56 At a glance The Court of Appeal upheld that DMG was vicariously liable for the unidentified worker’s negligence, based on circumstantial evidence showing the worker was likely DMG’s direct employee. The Court overturned the trial judge’s finding and […]