In this episode, we cross examine Carolyn Pugsley, Christine Wong, and Peter Jones, Partners at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, and key members of our incident response team. We have all worked closely on some of the region's most signficant cyber attacks.

In this podcast we talk about the most critical legal issues confronting corporates in Australia, in light of the current cyber threat landscape. We discuss director duties, disclosure, the use of privilege, the rise of the cyber injunction and third party / supply chain management.

It was a privilege to curate this discussion. Every time I speak with Carolyn, Christine and Peter…I learn more. I’m sure you’ll get a lot out of this discussion.

This is cross-examining Cazz, Christine and PJ. Here we go…

Recorded on 24 June 2025

In this episode of Inside Employment, hosts Drew Pearson, Lucy Boyd, and Stephanie Blancquart unpack the evolving landscape of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in the workplace. They explore the growing regulatory momentum in Australia – particularly the upcoming Gender Undervaluation awards review at the Fair Work Commission – and what it means for employers navigating modern award obligations and pay gap reporting.

The discussion also touches on the global shift away from traditional DEI initiatives, contrasting it with Australia’s intensifying focus on systemic reform. With key decisions expected to roll out from November into the new year, this episode offers insights for employers preparing for change.

In this podcast, we explore class actions procedures and trends in the US, and what similarities and differences there are with England and Wales. The episode is hosted by Alan Watts, a partner in our disputes team in London and joint head of our global class actions group. He is joined by two disputes partners in our New York office who have extensive experience of dealing with class action litigation: Eileen Patt, who focuses on advertising disputes, and Maxwell Herman, who focuses on product liability and ESG litigation.

This is the first in a 'mini-series' of two episodes. We will be back with a second episode exploring the class actions landscape in Australia.

For a more in-depth analysis see Class actions radar: United States, which is part of our report on the global class actions landscape, Class actions radar: scanning global trends and risks.

In part one of our Inside Safety podcast series exploring directors’ duties, Steve Bell, Aaron Anderson and Olga Klimczak delve into the evolving case law on responsibilities of officers under the Model Work Health and Safety laws and internationally.

Through recent case law updates, the episode unpacks the key legal principles and explores the practical implications for directors. We analyse how directors can assess whether they’ve met their duty - by understanding the risks that occur within their business operations, applying appropriate resources, and verifying the effectiveness of controls. The discussion then offers practical insights into what reasonable steps look like, including the extent to which directors can reasonably rely on others within the business, and the importance of maintaining documentation as evidence of challenge and oversight.

With regulators increasingly focused on senior leadership, this episode is a timely call to action for boards to move beyond paper obligations and engage meaningfully with safety governance.

Recorded 24 June 2025

This is the 33rd episode of our series of commercial litigation update podcasts. In this episode we give updates on the anticipated pilot on public access to court documents, two consultations relating to class actions and high-volume claims, and the Singapore Convention on international mediated settlements. We also discuss a couple of recent Court of Appeal decisions on contract law issues and the Supreme Court's decision in the motor finance commission appeal This episode is hosted by Maura McIntosh, a knowledge counsel in our commercial litigation team, who is joined by Natasha Johnson, a disputes partner, and Ceri Morgan, a knowledge counsel in our banking litigation team.

Below you can find links to our blog posts on the developments and cases covered in this podcast.

• Solicitors Regulation Authority reviews high-volume consumer claims sector
• Ministry of Justice consults on implementation of Singapore Convention on international mediated settlements
• Court of Appeal confirms court has no jurisdiction despite English jurisdiction clauses as defendants were not parties to relevant contracts as undisclosed principals
• Court of Appeal finds binding contract concluded by exchange of emails despite referring to preparation of formal agreement
• Supreme Court decision in Hopcraft motor finance commission appeal – key implications for financial services firms

See podcast episode transcript here.

In this "Back to school" edition of the public law podcast, Jasveer Randhawa is joined by HSF Kramer partners Nusrat Zar and James Wood. Together, they discuss recent developments in the duty to consult in the cases of Liberty and Possible (The 10:10 Foundation) before delving into human rights challenges in Shvidler and Wikimedia Foundation. To conclude, they explore judicial approaches in complex areas and reflect on the balance between discretion and accountability in high policy contexts.

Speakers: Jasveer Randhawa (Knowledge Counsel), Nusrat Zar (Partner), and James Wood (Partner).

You can find out more about the cases covered in this podcast on our blog at the following links:

Another twist in the consultation case law – so just what is a consultation?

Challenges to the Jet Zero Strategy grounded as Administrative Court dismisses claims based on consultation and policy concerns

Supreme Court decides on the correct standard of review for proportionality

High Court dismisses Wikimedia’s challenge to Online Safety Act thresholds—but leaves the door open for future challenges

High Court gives guidance on regulator's interpretation of legislation and codes

Procedural flaw under the National Security and Investment Act regime insufficient to invalidate decision