Emily Jennings is a partner at Moulis Legal, leading our dispute resolution practice, and our Brisbane presence.
Working with domestic and international businesses, Emily helps her clients manage and resolve their disputes commercially and efficiently so that they can get back to doing business. She understands the direct and indirect costs that come with litigation, and the difficulties faced by decision makers when disputes materially impact the performance, growth, or future of a business. Emily supports clients to overcome these hurdles and ensures that they are well informed when making key decisions.
Emily advises clients at all stages of a dispute, from initial advice on potential claims and prospects of success, through to commencing Court proceedings and preparing for trial. Always with a keen focus on the commercial implications, she assists clients in preparing and responding to time-critical and business-critical legal matters including urgent interlocutory applications, injunctions, and creditor statutory demands. She also aids clients to strategically respond to inquiries and investigations by regulators.
Emily has acted in complex contractual litigation, corporate and shareholder disputes, cross-border intellectual property disputes and competition law issues. She also regularly acts for applicants seeking judicial review of decisions made by government, including decisions from the Anti-Dumping Commission, the Minister for Industry, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Australian Border Force. For trade and customs disputes, Emily and her team work closely with Moulis Legal’s international trade and regulatory teams to combine their industry knowledge and expertise.
Emily has managed legal proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia, the New South Wales Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court of Victoria, using her extensive knowledge of the rules, practices, and procedures of each Court to her client’s advantage. Emily also has experience running matters on appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court and the High Court of Australia.
Beyond the courtroom, Emily’s clients appreciate her ability to understand and learn about their business and consider their commercial goals when resolving a dispute. This commercial awareness reflects Emily’s strengths in strategically analysing the direction of a matter, assessing prospects of success, and identifying commercial opportunities for resolution.
Emily graduated from Griffith University in 2011 with a Bachelor of Laws (Hons) and a Bachelor of International Business and did her Graduate Diploma of Legal Practice at the College of Law in 2012.
Having travelled and studied in China with the Confucius Institute at the University of Melbourne, Emily has a strong understanding of Chinese culture and business practices.
Emily also holds a Masters in Public and International Law from the University of Melbourne, where she studied contemporary legal issues such as artificial intelligence and the law, current issues in administrative law (taught by The Hon Kenneth Hayne AC KC) and digital trade, to name a few.
Emily is currently a director and secretary of Australia China Initiatives Limited, a not-for-profit entity trading as Australia-China Young Professionals Initiative (ACYPI). The organisation provides opportunities to connect, engage and empower young professionals in the Australia-China space.
In her spare time, Emily is most likely to be found watching her beloved Richmond Tigers in the AFL or cleaning up after her two (very big) St Bernards.
To enforce a foreign judgment in Australia, it must first be registered in an appropriate Australian Court. There are several pathways to have a foreign judgment successfully registered in Australia. Unsurprisingly, some pathways are more straightforward than others. It all depends on what type of judgment it is and where it was made.
Queensland tourism icon “The Big Pineapple” recently tasted sweet success in the Queensland Supreme Court with judgment setting aside a creditor’s statutory demand issued against it as part of an ongoing multi-million dollar dispute amongst investors.
In one of the most highly publicised administrative law cases in recent history, Novak Djokovic’s case in the Australian Federal Circuit Court shines a light on the important but often overlooked role of judicial review in the Australian legal system, and the power of procedural fairness and reasonableness in overturning government decisions.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has secured an important settlement in its action against Tasmanian Ports Corporation (TasPorts) in the Federal Court. In the first case since an ‘effects test’ was added to the ‘purpose test’ as a basis for establishing ‘misuse of market power’, TasPorts admitted that it had engaged in conduct.
In late 2019, Qube Ports Pty Ltd (Qube) and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) each commenced proceedings against major Australian ports alleging misuse of market power pursuant to section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act (CCA) 2010 (Cth).
Government procurement is a big business in Australia and abroad. For many businesses, being successful in government tenders is a key part of their strategy. Within Australia, 78,150 government contracts were entered into for the 2018/19 financial year worth a total of $64.5 billion.
On 18 February 2020, significant changes to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) came into effect to help combat the controversial and damaging practice of illegal phoenix activity.
The phrase “without prejudice” regularly appears in communications between parties in a dispute as it is often seen as a blanket protection against all things said, or admitted, to the other side. However, this phrase is easy to use incorrectly, leaving parties with the mistaken belief that their statements are protected by privilege.
In one of the largest shakeups of competition law in Australia, the controversial and highly anticipated ‘effects test’ for determining misuse of market power is set to come into operation in coming weeks. This follows the passing of wider reforms to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (“the Act”) in October.
Following the highly publicised Harper review into Australian competition law, the long awaited reforms to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (“the Act”) were passed in Parliament on 18 October 2017.
The High Court of Australia recently handed down its highly anticipated decision in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Flight Centre Travel Group Ltd  HCA 49.
Mergers and acquisitions play an important role in the economy, allowing companies to take advantage of synergies to achieve business efficiency, build expertise and services, and diversify risk. At the same time, consumers benefit from maintaining and encouraging healthy competition between businesses selling goods and services to ensure that prices remain affordable.
In a landmark trade mark ruling from the Beijing High People’s Court, Treasury Wine Estates (“TWE”), the owner of the ‘Penfolds’ wine brand, has successfully challenged the registration of the lucrative ‘Ben Fu’ trade mark which had been registered by a well-known ‘trade mark squatter’ in China.
Achieving success in a formal legal dispute is only half the battle. Despite a resounding legal victory in a court or arbitration, a business may still lose the war if they are not able to enforce their hard won judgment or award against the defeated party.
Evidence is crucial to success in any dispute, but there can be many hurdles in identifying and collecting the evidence which is necessary to prove a claim. The challenges in this process are compounded in cross-border disputes as key evidence can be located outside of where the proceedings are taking place or can even be located across multiple borders.
In what is the biggest shake up of competition law in Australia for many years, the Australian Government has announced that it will amend the legal test to determine whether a business has misused its market power. If the proposed changes are passed, the scope of activities constituting a misuse of market power will be significantly broadened.
Australia’s free trade agreement with China, the highly debated Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and Australia’s recent dispute with big tobacco in Singapore have drawn public and political attention to Investor State Dispute Settlement, or ISDS. Characterisations of ISDS have included it being an attack on democracy, a threat to national sovereignty or a panacea that protects all international investment.
After a year of uncertainty, the High Court’s decision in CFMEU v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate & Anor (“the CFMEU case”) has restored and validated the long held practice in regulatory matters for parties to agree on a civil penalty to submit for approval by the Court.
Moulis Legal’s Christopher Hewitt, Emily Jennings and Macky Markar discuss how Australian businesses can resolve disputes in China using legal, administrative and commercial strategies.
Moulis Legal’s Christopher Hewitt, Emily Murphy and Macky Markar discuss how Australian businesses can protect their intellectual property in China using legal, administrative and commercial strategies.