One factor relevant to a court’s discretion whether or not to grant an injunction is the question of whether, if the injunction were granted, it would require the constant supervision of the court to ensure compliance with its terms. In such situation, the quality of the parties’ (business) relationship, historically, may be relevant.

Where there is a multi-party contract, can select parties to that contract vary, as between themselves, their rights and obligations under such contract without also obtaining the consent of all other parties?

In Pearce v Waller Legal Pty Ltd [2025] VSC 324, a plaintiff sought damages for loss of opportunity arising from a claim of professional negligence, specifically for deprivation of the opportunity to pursue the economic loss component in an earlier proceeding against a defendant. The case illustrates the difficulties in pursuing damages for a lost opportunity to litigate.

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court appears to have clarified the test for determining whether a claim or defence in a civil proceeding in Victoria should be summarily dismissed, holding that there is a two-stage test for courts to apply before granting summary judgment in favour of a party to a proceeding.

In the case of Aldi Foods Pty Ltd v Northcote Shopping Centre Pty Ltd [2024] VSC 799, the Supreme Court has ruled on the validity of capping rent increases in retail leases in Victoria.

The High Court in the decision in Kramer v Stone [2024] HCA 48 has clarified two key matters relevant to establishing the element of ‘detrimental reliance’ in an action for estoppel: the degree of ‘encouragement’ necessary to be given by a promisor to promisee, and the extent of the promisor’s knowledge of the promisee’s reliance on the promise.

What does it mean for evidence to be ‘not admissible’?

In the case of Sandpiper Developments Pty Ltd v Main Beach Developments Qld Pty Ltd [2024] VSC 469, the plaintiff decided not to proceed with its claims. When the question of costs arose, the defendants sought a non-party costs order. The Court considered, and summarised, a number of principles relevant to that issue.

What to make of a clause in a contract specifying that an amount owing following a breach can be calculated according to the terms of the contract?

Often when seeking to imply a term in a contract, a party will claim that the term should be implied because it is ‘necessary to give business efficacy’ to the contract. What might this mean, in practical terms?

In the context of a property co-ownership dispute, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal rejected a claim that beneficiaries in a unit trust, which trust held land equally as between one pair of beneficiaries and another, themselves held an ‘interest in land’ for the purposes of standing to seek an order forcing its sale.

In civil cases, facts must be proven on the balance of probabilities to the court’s actual persuasion. How, then, should a court assess whether a witness is telling the truth? In this blog post, I describe some of the factors a court might consider.