ASIC has signaled its commitment to pursuing cryptocurrency regulation in the courts by lodging an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court following the victory of Block Earner in ASIC v Web3 Ventures Pty Ltd [2025] FCAFC 58. The case has become a testing ground for how Australia’s regulatory framework is adapting to rapid technological change in digital assets and fintech product markets.

If it reaches the High Court, this case may have the potential to become a leading precedent on digital asset regulation in Australia. Accordingly, our Financial Services Newsletter panel members have been tracking the case’s development since its inception. FinTech expert, Andrea Beatty, and her team at Piper Alderman have provided an update on the appeal in Issue 24(5), “High stake in the High Court: why the Block Earner case matters”. Customers will benefit from its succinct, well-considered explanation of the background and context of the case, as well as expert analysis on the significance of its movement toward the High Court.

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 have been replaced by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025. These new rules were registered on 11 August 2025 and will commence on 1 September 2025. The new Rules were created to ensure greater consistency for practitioners and registrars and jurisprudential certainty in resolving procedural matters. Practitioners will need to be aware of the new Rules and how they apply.

John Mathieson and former Federal Circuit Court Judge Rolf Driver, two of our expert authors for High Court Federal Court Practice and Procedure, are underway with the task of transferring relevant commentary from the 2021 Rules to the 2025 Rules, to ensure that the new Rules are ready with annotations to assist subscribers with applicable case law, as soon as possible after commencement.

The Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 were originally made on 10 September 2015 and came into operation on 23 November 2015. Under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994, these rules are set to sunset all at once exactly 10 years after their making, which means they expire on 10 September 2025. As of now, no replacement has been published or entered into force. The current 2015 Rules remain operative beyond that date unless a remake occurs prior to expiry. A remake is expected within a week of 28 August 2025.

The Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 are scheduled to sunset on 10 September 2025 under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994. While no replacement instrument has yet been published, we expect it will be published soon. Our authors, David Bailey, Daniel Nguyen, and Nicolas Dour, are closely monitoring developments and will update Civil Procedure Victoria promptly once the new rules are made.

Over the last few years, there has been a lengthy string of cases being brought before the NSW Court system regarding the financial services company, Keybridge Capital Ltd. There have been numerous appeals against the decisions, dating back to 2021. This litigation continues on, with the most recent decision being handed down on 30 July 2025. The case pertains to the validity of shareholder notices to remove and appoint directors, and the decision to move shareholder meetings online due to COVID-19 safety regulations.

The impact of these cases has been discussed in earlier editions of Butterworths^® Corporation Law Bulletin, but the most recent was discussed in the July edition (2025.5). In a case note, the most recent was analysed and acts as a timely reminder for all companies and their chairpersons that they should consider the wording of the company's constitution to ensure that the wording around meeting adjournments is not ambiguous. This string of litigation touches on some of the most vital aspects of running a company (shareholder meetings and the company constitution) and the case notes and articles discussing Keybridge in this newsletter serve as important discussions, in easy to digest formats, that all users will benefit from.

In NSW, sexual assault is considered to be aggravated if “the complainant is … under the authority of the accused person”: Crimes Act 1900 s 61J(1)(e). The meaning of “under the authority of” in this provision was considered in Hu v R [2025] NSWCCA 66 in the context of an osteopath convicted of offences against female patients, with the court holding that where there is a relationship of patient and health care professional, and the patient is receiving treatment, the patient is “in the care of” and therefore “under the authority of” the health care professional.

This case is of particular significance because usually the phrase “under the authority of” is used in cases against step-parents, parents, teachers, etc, of complainants under the age of 18, or where complainants have an intellectual disability. There have been a small number of trials in lower courts holding that the phrase applied regarding medical professionals in relation to adult complainants of normal cognitive ability, but it is only now, in Hu v R, that the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal has affirmed that this approach is correct. Customers are kept up to date with this important development, as this case is discussed by Peter Johnson SC (Commissioner of the NSW Law Enforcement Conduct Commission) in his recent annotations in Criminal Practice and Procedure NSWt at [8-s 61J.5], and a casenote on the case is featured in Issue 7 of Criminal Law News at [5044] – written by Justice Hulme of the NSW Supreme Court.

The NT has implemented Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the Model Defamation Reforms through the Defamation Legislation Amendment Act 2025, commencing on 11 August 2025. Tasmania has also implemented Stage 2 reforms through the Defamation Amendment Act 2025, commencing on 16 June 2025.

Michael Sexton SC is currently updating the notes and commentary in Australian Defamation Law and Practice to reflect the adoption of the uniform defamation provisions in the NT and Tasmania. Uniform amendments pertaining to the serious harm defence, the addition of a further category of publication entitled to absolute privilege, and digital intermediary liability are all helpfully canvassed in the Defences in Defamation, Absolute Privilege and Honest Opinion in Defamation, and Internet and Social Media chapters, respectively, so that NT and Tas customers can be prepared for these changes to defamation laws in their jurisdiction.

Davis Stack Capital Pty Ltd v RAJ & JAI (Mudgee) Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 791 was a case handed down by the Supreme Court of NSW on 13 June 2025. Primarily a contractual case, it concerns a $70 million sale of units in a trust where the sole asset was a land development in Mudgee. Specific performance was sought by the sellers due to breach of the Unit Sale and Purchase Agreement by the buyer and its parent company (as guarantor). This case has clarified the limits of guarantor liability in complex commercial sale agreements, as well as underscoring important points for insurers and commercial drafters, including that Guarantee construction is strictissimi juris and specific performance is still the default/main remedy for land/land-like assets.

Authors Peter Yeldham and Darcy Jackman, in an article for the Australian Dispute Resolution Bulletin, discuss in detail the decision’s reinforcement with orthodox contract principles: strict limits on guarantor liability, commercial construction, and the routine grant of specific performance, and the practical implications of drafting indemnities and guarantees in high-value transactions.

A recent High Court decision was handed down in Helensburgh Coal v Bartley [2025] HCA 29, where the HCA ruled that an employee’s dismissal was not a “genuine redundancy” under s 389 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The HCA found that the employer failed to consider redeploying the employee into roles performed by contractors, which could have been reasonably offered through internal restructuring. Section 389 defines a "genuine redundancy" partly by whether it was reasonable to redeploy the employee within the business. The HCA clarified that “reasonable” includes replacing contractors with redeployed employees, if doing so “would not fundamentally alter the business”. This interpretation broadens the scope of employer obligations and limits the ability to rely on redundancy as a lawful dismissal ground.

Michael Byrnes, Partner at Swaab and a long-term author of Workplace Law – Fair Work, has recently updated annotations to the Fair Work Act Part 3-2, on Unfair Dismissal, including a discussion of this case. The decision is significant because it broadens the scope of what constitutes a “genuine redundancy,” raising the bar for employers. This update is a fantastic guide for subscribers who must now consider redeployment options beyond existing vacancies, including restructuring contractor roles, and bear that in mind when undertaking company restructuring and reassessing redundancy policies.

Following developments introduced by the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Act 2023 (Cth), the Family Law Amendment Act 2024 and the Federal Circuit and Family court of Australia (Family Law) Amendment (2025 Measures No.1) Rules 2025 (Cth), several changes have come into effect to ensure the protection of vulnerable parties and other persons, such as children, from disclosure of information that could be harmful to them.

As a result of these changes, our expert family law author Michelle Daniel is currently updating four separate Family Law precedent suites located in the Australian Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedents. These guidecards include: Family (Child Support), Family (Divorce), Family (Appeals, Subpoenas and Correspondence), and Family (Superannuation). Michelle has re-written with great detail many of the introductory notes which inform users of the current state of the law, as well as updated the precedents to reflect current practice. Subscribers will soon have up-to-date precedents with detailed introductory notes ready for use in family practice.

In the recent decision of Shinohara & Shinohara [2025] FedCFamC1A 126, the Appeal Division of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) decisively indicated that notional property (or add-backs) are no longer items to be included in the balance sheet. The court has confirmed that the entrenched family law practice of notionally adding back property that no longer exists to the asset pool is a thing of the past. This is an important decision as it is the first time the full court has interpreted the recent changes to s 79 of the Family Law Act introduced by the Family Law Amendment Act 2024 in June 2025.

Martha Barnett SC has recently updated the annotations to section 79 of the Family Law Act in Australian Family Law to include a discussion of the decision of the Full Court in Shinohara & Shinohara. Along with fellow authors Richard Chisholm, retired Family Court Judge, and Julie Suthers, Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Judge, she is also currently updating the Family Law Act commentary in light of the recent significant changes made by the Family Law Amendment Act 2024.

The High Court has recently granted special leave to appeal to Bed Bath 'N' Table for its ongoing litigation with Global Retail Brands Australia. The Bed Bath 'N' Table v Global Retail Brands Australia Pty Ltd case has been integral in bringing about discussion in the trade mark area around the role and importance of reputation acquired through trading under a unique brand name, the ability to rely on said reputation in making consumer law and passing off claims, regardless of whether trade mark infringement is able to be established, as well as what circumstances the 'fitted for purpose test' applies in assessing a consumer law and/or passing off claim. The case also raised interesting issues surrounding evidence, such as the role of evidence and distinguishing evidence in surrounding circumstances, such as deceptive similarity, from evidence of reputation.

Natasha Burns, Sophie Clapin, and Deborah Jackson from Allens have written a thought-provoking and in-depth article on the case for an upcoming issue of the Intellectual Property Law Bulletin. The article explores the first instance and appeal decisions, as well as the reasoning put forward by both parties in the High Court special leave appeal. The article provides an in-depth background of each stage of the case, as well as a detailed discussion sounding the multiple interesting issues that have arisen in the dispute and what this means for trademark owners. The article will help practitioners and brand owners to further understand the rights you obtain from trademark registration and the rights you obtain from reputational rights, as well as the importance of growing reputation in sub-brands or truncated versions of key marks. The issue containing the article is set to be published in late September/early October.

The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) has been amended to introduce a new statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy, which now appears in Schedule 2 of the Act. While the statutory tort was enacted in the Act by the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth), it is a standalone cause of action to be read and construed separately from the rest of the Privacy Act. This new statutory tort came into force on 11 June 2025. The new tort is intended to provide a flexible, uniform framework to address current and emerging privacy risks, to provide individuals with a cause of action that addresses a broader range of serious invasions of privacy, including interference with an individual’s seclusion as well as the misuse of information relating to that individual.

Expert author, Jane Rawlings, has written new commentary within the "Laws of confidence and misuse of private information" chapter in the Privacy, Confidentiality and Data Security publication to comprehensively explore the new statutory tort of serious invasions of privacy. Rawlings not only outlines the key elements of the tort that an individual would need to prove, but also comprehensively explores each element, providing customers with an in-depth understanding of the tort while exploring supporting case law. Rawlings goes further to discuss defences, remedies and exceptions to the statutory tort.

On 1 August 2025, the new Property Law Act 2023 (QLD) came into force. One focus of its new provisions is on the new seller disclosure regime for property transactions. Its objectives are to clarify the disclosure obligations of sellers, introduce a transparent and effective form of disclosure, provide information of value to the decision of a buyer to purchase, and to balance the information cost between buyer and seller. These provisions are also accompanied by a new version of the REIQ contract for the sale of land.

Australian Property Law Bulletin General Editor, Professor Sharon Christensen, has written an informative article in that publication setting out the primary new obligations on sellers when giving disclosure statements to potential purchasers under the new regime. It sets out what transactions require a seller disclosure statement, what the exceptions are, when the documents should be given, and what information they should contain. Legal practitioners should ensure that they are up to date with these changes, as parties and agents are also dealing with the widespread differences from how they used to operate.

New | Topic: Debt Capital Markets

Our new topic will assist those advising Australian issuers, arrangers, and dealers on debt capital markets transactions. The topic provides comprehensive guidance on:

• the types of debt securities (including zero coupon securities) prevalent in the Australian wholesale market
• key provisions in debt capital market transactions in Australia, with some comparison to market practice for international issuances
• documenting an Australian medium-term note (AMTN) programme (including a comprehensive drafting guide for AMTN terms and conditions)
• the steps for establishing and issuing notes under an AMTN programme, and
• listing debt securities on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX).