Publication,

Looking back: Contract Law Review 2018

AU | EN
Current site :    AU   |   EN
Australia
Belgium
China
China Hong Kong SAR
Germany
Italy
Japan
Singapore
Spain
UAE
United Kingdom
United States
Global

In this edition of KWM's Contract Law Review we look at key cases and other changes that have shaped the development of contract law in Australia over the past 12 months.

There is a deep existing body of contract case law that has been developed over hundreds of years. Accordingly, it is perhaps unrealistic to expect major shifts or changes in approach each year. However, while the cases we cover in this edition of the Contract Law Review may not be considered groundbreaking, they are still of great use to practitioners seeking to understand how existing concepts may be adapted and applied to different fact scenarios. Most usefully, staying across recent case law helps practitioners to stay alert and avoid common pitfalls that have trapped those that have come before them.

Watch KWM partner and authour of the review, Michael Swinson, discuss the key findings from the review:

Download Looking Back: KWM Contract Law Review 2018 to find out more. 

LATEST THINKING
Insight
On 2 August 2022, the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022 was passed (Aged Care Bill), introducing important regulatory changes to Australia’s aged care sector. The Bill makes numerous legislative amendments, including to the Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth) (Aged Care Act) and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 (Cth) (Transitional Provisions Act), and responds to various recommendations made by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (Royal Commission) Final Report (Report). The Report identified the provision of substandard aged care services and perceived systemic failures in the aged care sector.[1]

08 August 2022

Insight
The Federal Court has refused an application to stay proceedings to quantify compensation for patent infringement (quantum proceedings) pending the outcome of separate parallel proceedings challenging the validity of the infringed patent on new grounds. The case is significant as intellectual property cases are regularly bifurcated with liability determined separately damages or an account of profits. A patentee may also bring consecutive infringement cases and therefore have two separate cases considering invalidity issues for the same patent running in parallel.

03 August 2022

Insight
Since the introduction of a nationwide Marketing Authorization Holder (MAH) system in 2019, licenses have linked directly to therapeutic products rather than manufacturers.

03 August 2022