African Unionlegal & regulatory news

Federal Court bans director despite earlier proceeds-of-crime conviction

The Federal Court has permanently banned a director from managing companies after he breached his directors' duties in relation to an investment scam, with the regulator successfully overcoming a threshold question on whether the director's earlier criminal conviction blocked the civil case. The legal significance of this matter lies in its implications for corporate governance and regulatory enforcement. The court's decision highlights the importance of directors fulfilling their fiduciary duties and underscores the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's (ASIC) ability to pursue civil action against directors who breach these duties, even if they have been convicted of related criminal offenses. This ruling will likely be closely watched by practitioners advising companies on compliance with the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), as well as those representing directors facing similar allegations. The relevant statutes and regulations involved in this matter include sections 180, 181, and 182 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), which govern a director's duties to act in good faith, exercise powers for a proper purpose, and not improperly use their position. The court also considered section 206E of the Act, which allows for the disqualification of directors who have breached their duties. ASIC's action was brought under these provisions, demonstrating the regulator's commitment to enforcing compliance with corporate law. The key parties involved in this matter include the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), which initiated the proceedings against the director, and the Federal Court, which heard the case. The court's decision will have implications for the director, who has been permanently banned from managing companies, as well as for other directors who may be facing similar allegations of breaching their duties. Practitioners should take note of this ruling and its potential impact on corporate governance and regulatory enforcement in Australia. Attorneys advising companies on compliance with the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) should review their clients' internal controls and procedures to ensure that directors are fulfilling their fiduciary duties. Those representing directors facing similar allegations should be aware of the court's willingness to consider civil action, even if a related criminal conviction has been obtained.

Dentons' ASAPD Pro Bono Partnership Revolutionizes Disability-Focused Sports in AU

Dentons has continued its partnership with the Australian Sporting Alliance for People with Disability (ASAPD) for a third year, following an initial agreement in 2024. This long-term commitment is a testament to the firm's dedication to pro bono work and its impact on the community. The significance of this partnership lies in its ability to provide legal support to organisations that cater to people with disabilities, ensuring they maintain their charitable status and can continue to make a difference in the lives of those they serve. This is particularly important for ASAPD, which oversees the governance of downstream organisations and relies on partnerships like Dentons to help them navigate complex legal issues. The partnership between Dentons and ASAPD is rooted in Australia's regulatory environment, which encourages pro bono work and community engagement among law firms. The Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules 2019 (ASCR) require solicitors to provide a certain level of pro bono work, and Dentons has taken this commitment seriously through its partnership with ASAPD. The key parties involved in this partnership are Dentons, ASAPD, and the various organisations that fall under ASAPD's umbrella. These organisations rely on ASAPD for governance and support, and Dentons provides critical legal expertise to ensure they can continue their important work. Practitioners should take note of the importance of pro bono work in Australia and the role it plays in supporting community organisations like ASAPD.

Shine Lawyers lead Johnson & Johnson talcum powder class action in Australia

Shine Lawyers advances class action as Johnson & Johnson settles suits for US$5.5bn While the settlement in the United States may bring some optimism to those affected, it is essential to note that the outcomes for Australians could differ significantly. Shine Lawyers has continued to advance its class action against Johnson & Johnson in Australia, despite the recent agreement to settle ongoing lawsuits in the US for US$5.5bn. The firm filed a statement of claim on 23 July, and the initial case management conference is set for 26 August. The class action alleges that Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products were defective, unfit for purpose, and not of merchantable quality because they could cause cancers of the female reproductive system, epithelial tissue, or mesothelioma. The claim covers individuals with biological female sex characteristics who were diagnosed with a gynaecological cancer or mesothelioma before 1 December 2025, as well as their executors, administrators, beneficiaries, or trustees if they died before that date. The class action focuses on specific products, including Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder. The Associated Press reported that in line with the proposed settlement, the company will issue an initial payout not exceeding US$3bn next year, with subsequent payments due in 2028. However, the settlement is contingent on the participation of at least 95% of remaining claimants. Practitioners should monitor this case closely as it may have significant implications for class actions and product liability claims in Australia. The outcome of this matter will likely be influenced by the US settlements and the Australian court's interpretation of the relevant laws and regulations. Attorneys representing clients with similar claims should be prepared to adapt their strategies accordingly. Craig Allsopp, head of class actions at Shine, has warned Australians to 'manage expectations regarding any potential compensation outcomes in Australia.' This cautionary note highlights the importance of understanding the unique legal landscape in each jurisdiction and the potential differences in outcomes. Practitioners should be aware that the US settlements do not necessarily guarantee similar results in Australian courts. The class action is brought against Johnson & Johnson and its related subsidiaries in the Supreme Court of Victoria, alleging that their talcum powder products were defective and caused harm to individuals with biological female sex characteristics. The claim covers a range of cancers, including gynaecological cancers and mesothelioma. The court's decision will likely be influenced by the US settlements and the Australian court's interpretation of the relevant laws and regulations. Practitioners should note that the class action is ongoing, and the outcome is not yet reported. However, the recent developments in the US may have significant implications for the case in Australia. Attorneys representing clients with similar claims should be prepared to adapt their strategies accordingly.

FCFCOA Judges Steven Middleton Sandra Taglieri Tracy Flintoff Appointed

Federal Court rejects director's bid to represent insurance company in competition case

Federal Court considers vexatious proceedings order against man suing financial entities

The Federal Court of Australia is considering whether to issue a vexatious proceedings order against an applicant attempting to sue various financial entities, including the Australian Financial Security Authority and its Sydney office head. This development has significant implications for practitioners, as it highlights the court's growing concern with frivolous litigation and the need for applicants to demonstrate a genuine interest in pursuing their claims. The vexatious proceedings order is a powerful tool that can be used to curb abusive or harassing behavior by litigants, and its potential application in this case underscores the importance of carefully evaluating the merits of each claim before proceeding. The relevant statutes and regulations involved in this matter include the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), which governs judicial review of administrative decisions, and the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), which outline the procedures for filing applications and affidavits in the Federal Court. The court's consideration of a vexatious proceedings order also raises questions about the jurisdictional limits of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, particularly section 27(2), which appears to be at issue in this case. The key parties involved in this matter include the applicant, who is seeking declaratory relief against various financial entities, and the Federal Court itself, which must determine whether to grant a vexatious proceedings order or allow the application to proceed. Practitioners should take note of this development and be mindful of the potential consequences of pursuing frivolous or harassing litigation, as well as the importance of carefully evaluating the merits of each claim before proceeding.

Harvey Norman Latitude Finance ASIC $55m fine for misleading ads

The Federal Court has ordered Harvey Norman Holdings Ltd and Latitude Finance Australia to pay a total of $55m in fines after they were found guilty of misleading conduct and false or misleading representations. This significant penalty is among the highest ASIC has secured for this type of case, highlighting the importance of truthful and transparent advertising. The substantial fine sends a strong warning to businesses about the consequences of engaging in deceptive marketing practices. For practitioners, this ruling underscores the need for companies to carefully review their advertising campaigns to ensure compliance with relevant laws and regulations. The Federal Court's decision was based on ASIC's allegations that Harvey Norman and Latitude had jointly launched an advertising campaign across Australia touting a 60-month interest-free and no-deposit payment method for goods bought at Harvey Norman stores. However, the ads omitted crucial information about consumers' liability to pay monthly account service fees and establishment fees until March 2021. These fees amounted to a minimum of $537. The relevant statutes involved in this case are s.12DA, 12DB, and 12DF of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth). The court's ruling highlights the importance of compliance with these provisions, which prohibit misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to financial products and services. The key parties involved in this case are ASIC, Harvey Norman Holdings Ltd, and Latitude Finance Australia. For businesses operating in Australia, this ruling serves as a reminder to prioritize transparency and accuracy in their advertising campaigns. Practitioners should advise clients to review their marketing strategies to ensure compliance with relevant laws and regulations.

Federal Court clears aircraft inspector of misleading conduct over unairworthy plane

The Federal Court has cleared an aircraft inspector of misleading conduct over an unairworthy plane in a decision that highlights the importance of clear contract terms and scope. In Four Air Leitchville Pty Ltd v Hurlad Pty Ltd (No 4) [2026] FCA 976, the court dismissed a buyer's claims against the company it had hired to inspect an aircraft before purchase. The buyer bought the 1982 Fairchild Merlin III-C from its seller on 11 December 2017 for $880,000 and subsequently found that the aircraft needed extensive repairs and was not airworthy. The inspection report, dated 6 November 2017, described the aircraft as 'in reasonable condition for its age and hours.' The court's decision is significant because it underscores the need for clear contract terms and scope in services contracts. In this case, the inspector's obligations were limited to the specific tasks listed in writing, which did not include providing an opinion on airworthiness. The buyer had argued that earlier discussions and its aim of confirming airworthiness formed part of the deal, but the court disagreed, finding that those talks came before the scope was agreed and that the buyer had accepted the listed tasks without seeking more. The relevant statutes and regulations involved in this case include the Australian Consumer Law, which bans misleading or deceptive conduct and false representations. The court's decision is also significant because it highlights the importance of clear contract terms and scope in services contracts, particularly in industries where there may be a high level of technical expertise required. Practitioners should take note that the court's decision emphasizes the need for clear and specific language in contracts to avoid disputes over scope and obligations.

ACT tribunal reprimands HWLE partner Fabio Fior over rude texts