Business Law Library & Tracker
Business Registration & Operations
Business names, electronic signing, company records, operational compliance and public-facing business details.
Sources last reviewed 2 June 2026
Published law explainers
308
Curated from a much larger legal corpus
Topics
11
Plain-English clusters
Published case explainers
663
Selected from thousands of decisions
Tracked updates
11
New, amended & reviewed
These are plain-English explainers, not legal advice. They are a good starting point, but check the linked official source before you rely on a specific section, and get advice for your situation.
Talk to a lawyerLegislation
Independent Contractors Act 2006 (Cth)
Independent Contractors Act 2006 (Cth)
Business Names Registration Act 2011 (Cth)
Business Names Registration Act 2011 (Cth)
Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth)
Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth)
Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth)
Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth)
Patents Act 1990 (Cth)
Patents Act 1990 (Cth)
Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth)
Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth)
Tracker
Cases
Kraft v Bega
Treat get-up, packaging and product presentation as transaction assets. In this case, the Court's summary of the primary judgment was that the rights to the Peanut Butter Trade Dress were sold to Bega in July 2017 and that Bega was entitled to use it in the business it acquired. The appeal failed because Kraft's core argument about the 2012 restructure documents was rejected. For a business owner, the lesson is not just to list registered marks in a sale or restructure. You should identify unregistered get-up, goodwill, recipes, packaging files, transitional branding rights, and any obligations a buyer is assuming under earlier group agreements. If the deal expects continuity on shelves from day one, the documents need to say exactly what visual presentation and goodwill move with the business, and what does not.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court dismissed Kraft's appeal with costs and dismissed Bega's cross-appeal with costs. The Court rejected Kraft's core argument that the 2012 restructure documents allocated the Peanut Butter Trade Dress to the North American grocery business. Instead, the Court held that, properly construed in commercial context, the trade dress was allocated to the global snacks business. The Court's summary of the primary judgment also records findings that the rights to the Peanut Butter Trade Dress were sold to Bega in July 2017, that Bega was entitled to use it in the business it acquired, and that Bega had not breached any assumed restructure obligations by doing so.
ACCC v JJ Richards
If your business uses standard form contracts with small business customers, ACCC v JJ Richards is a strong reminder to review the whole template, not just one clause at a time. The Court dealt with a recurring service contract that gave the supplier control over renewal, pricing, service-related credits, exclusivity, credit, indemnity and termination. Those rights are commercially familiar, but the case shows they can become unfair when they operate one way and leave the customer exposed to lock-in or detriment. A practical review should ask four questions. First, does the clause give your business a unilateral power over an important part of the relationship? Second, is that power genuinely necessary to protect a legitimate business interest? Third, does the customer have a meaningful counterbalance, such as notice, a right to dispute, or a right to terminate? Fourth, do several clauses work together to make the contract harsher overall? The case also shows the consequences of getting this wrong. A business may have to stop relying on existing terms, stop using them in future, notify customers, publish corrective material and run a compliance program. For many businesses, that is a much bigger problem than simply redrafting a clause.
Outcome: Moshinsky J made declarations and orders by consent on 13 October 2017. The Court declared that the eight identified term categories in captured small business standard form contracts entered into or renewed after 12 November 2016 were unfair contract terms within s 24 and void by operation of s 23. The Court also restrained JJ Richards from applying or relying on those terms in captured contracts, restrained it for five years from entering into small business standard form contracts containing those terms, required corrective notices and customer notification within 14 days, required an ACL compliance program within 90 days to be maintained for three years, and ordered that the parties bear their own costs.