Emily Jennings is a senior associate in Moulis Legal’s dispute resolution team. Emily is also head of office for Brisbane.
Based in Moulis Legal’s Brisbane office, Emily works with domestic and international clients to manage and resolve their disputes commercially and efficiently.
Emily has assisted clients in a range of dispute matters including complex contractual litigation, corporate and shareholder disputes, cross-border intellectual property infringements as well as competition law issues. Emily also has experience in seeking judicial review of decisions made by Customs and other trade law bodies and works closely with Moulis Legal’s international trade team in these reviews.
Emily advises and represents clients from a variety of industries at all stages of a dispute, from providing initial advice on potential claims and prospects of success, through to issuing Court proceedings and appearing at trial. Having been involved in legal proceedings in multiple Australian jurisdictions, including the Federal Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of Victoria, Emily has extensive knowledge of the rules, practices and procedures of each Court which she uses to her client’s advantage in negotiating and resolving disputes.
Emily also assists clients in responding to and managing regulatory matters including inquiries from government departments and investigations by regulatory authorities. This includes reviewing and responding to demands and infringement notices already issued, or liaising with and advocating for clients in response to an inquiry or investigation. Emily’s experience in dealing with regulators also includes representing clients in public merger reviews conducted by the ACCC.
Beyond the courtroom, Emily’s clients appreciate her ability to understand and learn about their business and take into consideration 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 in the resolution of a dispute.
Emily graduated from Griffith University with a Bachelor of International Business and a Bachelor of Laws (Hons) and has a Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice from the College of Law. During 2016, Emily undertook a study tour in China with the Confucius Institute at the University of Melbourne, spending time in Beijing, Nanjing and Shanghai to further develop her understanding of Chinese language, culture and business practices. Emily is currently the Chairperson of the College of Law Alumni Association Queensland Chapter, is a committee member for the Australia-China Young Professionals Initiative, and is actively involved with LAWASIA and the Queensland Law Society.
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. Globally, the World Trade Organization estimates that the government procurement market is worth $1.7trillion annually, just for the 48 signatory countries to the World Trade Organisation Government Procurement Agreement (“WTO GPA”).
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. Some would argue that this is a widely overused yet misunderstood phrase in legal practice.
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.
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. TWE had failed to register the trade mark, prior to the trade mark squatter’s registration, despite having developed a strong reputation over 20 years in the Chinese market.
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. Many successful disputes have actually resulted in substantive monetary losses for the victorious party because they failed to ensure ahead of time that the judgment or award would be valid in a jurisdiction where the other party has assets.
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. The proposed changes have attracted attention from big and small business alike. Whilst the changes could shift greater power to smaller industry players, those looking for a more level playing field should be careful what they wish for – the changes could impact more than just big business.
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. The CFMEU case is significant for any businesses and directors facing prosecution from regulatory bodies across Australia, especially as they consider whether they can (and should) negotiate with the regulatory body. In this Litigation Monitor, senior lawyer Emily Murphy reviews the CFMEU case and considers its application to Australian businesses responding to regulatory investigations.
Moulis Legal’s Christopher Hewitt, Emily Murphy 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.