Cases - Level Twenty Seven Chambers

Top

All Cases

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v eHarmony, Inc (No 2) [2026] FCA 1445

1-10-26 / Michael Hodge KC — Corporations

Michael Hodge KC (leading Ms E Brumby) appeared for the respondent, instructed by Baker McKenzie. In the liability stage of these proceedings, Horan J found that the respondent, eHarmony, had contravened ss 18, 29(1)(b), (g), (i) and (m), 34 and 48 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). This conduct included…

Dennison v Brisbane City Council [2026] QCA 193

29-9-26 / Mark Eade — Appellate, Professional Negligence

Mark Eade (led by C C Heyworth-Smith KC and D M Cormack) appeared for the appellant, instructed by Hall Payne Lawyers. This matter concerned a personal injury claim brought by a cyclist who collided with a temporary orange mesh barricade erected by the respondent. The appellant appealed against the primary…

Blue Dog Group Pty Ltd v Credit Suisse Equities (Australia) Pty Limited & Ors [2026] QSC 230

29-9-26 / Matthew Jones KC, Oliver Cook — Class Actions, Corporations

Oliver Cook (led by I Ahmed SC) represented the first defendant, instructed by Mallesons. Matthew Jones KC (leading N Dudley) represented the eighth defendant, instructed by Buchanan Rees Dispute Lawyers.

Sharpin v Qantas Airways Limited [2026] FCA 1399

23-9-26 / Scott Robinson — Employment & Industrial

This case concerned an Amended Interlocutory Application filed by the respondent, seeking orders that the applicant give discovery of documents pursuant to rr 20.12 and 20.15 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (FCR). The Court considered the application of the relevant legislative scheme (FCR), and the established principles relating…

TLAS Pty Ltd as trustee for the TLAS Trust v Arrowes Roading Safety Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1356

16-9-26 / Rob Anderson KC, Matthew Wilkinson — Competition & Consumer, Contract

The applicant sought orders for a refund and compensation for financial losses in respect of an Automatic Cone Truck Vehicle ('ACT vehicle') purchased from the respondent for $586,080. The applicant relied on two grounds. First, that the respondent breached an express contractual warranty of acceptable quality, as the ACT vehicle…