What are the opening hours?

Monday 8am - 5pm Tuesday 8am - 5pm Wednesday 8am - 5pm Thursday 8am - 5pm Friday 8am - 5pm Saturday 8am - 12am

http://www.oxbridgeassociates.com.au/

Oxbridge Associates, NAB Building, 3 Paramatta Square, Level 14, 153, Macquarie Street, Sydney (2026)

29/05/2026

May the sacred light of Vesak inspire peace, compassion, and wisdom in every heart.

At Oxbridge Associates, we extend our warmest wishes to you and your loved ones on this blessed Vesak Day. As we reflect on the teachings of Lord Buddha, may this season encourage kindness, gratitude, and unity within our communities and beyond.

May your Vesak be filled with serenity, hope, and meaningful moments with those who matter most. May the spirit of Vesak guide us towards greater understanding, harmony, and compassion in all that we do.

Happy Vesak Day.
With warm wishes,
Oxbridge Associates

15/04/2026

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐮𝐫𝐠𝐥𝐚𝐫’𝐬 𝐋𝐚𝐰𝐬𝐮𝐢𝐭: State v. Fries

From time to time, courts are asked to consider claims so unusual that they capture public attention far beyond the courtroom. State v. Fries is remembered as one such case, illustrating that even access to justice has practical limits.

𝐀 𝐁𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐤 𝐈𝐧 - 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦?
During the commission of a burglary, the defendant sustained injuries while unlawfully entering a private residence. Rather than accepting the risks inherent in criminal conduct, the burglar later attempted to bring legal action against the homeowner, alleging that unsafe conditions on the property had caused the injury.
The claim effectively asked the court to hold a property owner responsible for injuries suffered by a trespasser engaged in criminal activity.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐃𝐮𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐚𝐫𝐞
The court examined the scope of a homeowner’s duty of care, particularly toward unlawful entrants. While property owners may owe limited duties even to trespassers in certain circumstances, the law does not extend so far as to protect individuals from risks created by their own criminal acts.
The issue was not whether injuries occurred, but whether the law should recognise a duty in such circumstances.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭’𝐬 𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠
The court dismissed the claim, refusing to allow a burglar to shift responsibility for injuries sustained during the commission of a crime onto the homeowner. The decision reflected a clear boundary in tort law: courts will not reward illegal conduct with civil liability protections.

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞
Though often recalled humorously, the case reinforces an important principle. While negligence law is broad, it is not absurd. Legal duties are shaped by reasonableness, fairness, and public policy, not by opportunism.
As the case demonstrates, the law draws the line somewhere.

Should someone injured while committing a crime be able to turn the justice system into a source of compensation, or does responsibility begin with one’s own actions?

Disclaimer: This post is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. No responsibility is accepted for any loss or harm arising from reliance on this content.

13/04/2026

Wishing you all a very happy Sinhala and Tamil New Year from Oxbridge Associates.

May this auspicious occasion bring you and your loved one's joy, prosperity, good health, peace and happiness, along with fresh beginnings, continued success in all you do, and many memorable moments shared with family and friends, together with hope, positivity and renewed energy for the year ahead.

Oxbridge Associates

11/04/2026

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐨𝐧𝐤𝐞𝐲 𝐒𝐞𝐥𝐟𝐢𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞: Naruto v. Slater [2018]

In what may be one of the most unconventional copyright disputes in legal history, a smiling macaque from Indonesia became the unlikely face of a serious legal debate. The “Monkey Selfie” case tested the boundaries of authorship, legal personhood, and the reach of intellectual property law.

𝐀 𝐏𝐡𝐨𝐭𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐫, 𝐚 𝐌𝐨𝐧𝐤𝐞𝐲 - 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐦
In 2011, British wildlife photographer David Slater set up his camera in a nature reserve in Sulawesi, Indonesia, to photograph crested black macaques. While the camera was left unattended, one macaque, later identified as Naruto, pressed the shutter button, producing a series of striking images, including a now famous “selfie.”
The photographs went viral. Slater published and commercialised them, while websites such as Wikimedia Commons hosted the images on the basis that they were uncopyrightable.
This unusual set of facts soon led to an even more unusual lawsuit.

𝐖𝐡𝐨 𝐎𝐰𝐧𝐬 𝐚 𝐒𝐞𝐥𝐟𝐢𝐞 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐚 𝐇𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧?
In 2015, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed suit in the United States as “next friend” to Naruto, arguing that,
• Naruto was the actual author of the photographs;
• Copyright law does not explicitly prohibit animals from owning copyright;
• Any proceeds earned from the images should be held for Naruto’s benefit and the conservation of his species.
The claim sought to establish, for the first time, copyright ownership by a non human animal.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
At the heart of the case was a deceptively simple issue,
Can an animal be recognised as an “author” with enforceable rights under the U.S. Copyright Act?
This required the court to interpret a statute drafted entirely on the assumption that creative works are the product of human intellect and agency.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭’𝐬 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧
Both the District Court and, on appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the claims.
The court held that:
• While an animal might theoretically satisfy constitutional standing requirements,
• The Copyright Act does not grant animals statutory standing, and
• Courts cannot extend legal rights where Congress has not clearly done so.
In clear terms, the court concluded that copyright law protects human authorship, not animal creativity.

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞
The Monkey Selfie case was widely publicised, often with humour, but its implications were serious:
• It reaffirmed that legal personhood is a prerequisite for statutory rights.
• It clarified the limits of judicial interpretation in the absence of legislative intent.
• It became a key reference point in modern debates over AI generated works and non human “authors.”

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
Law evolves, but not without limits. While the image captured global attention and sparked serious academic debate, the court ultimately applied common sense: rights follow legal actors, not curiosity or novelty.

When the law protects creators, must it also recognise every creator or only those capable of bearing legal duties?

Disclaimer: This post is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. No responsibility is accepted for any loss or harm arising from reliance on this content.

08/04/2026

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐦𝐨𝐤𝐞 𝐁𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐞: Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893]

In 1893, the English courts decided a case that transformed advertising hype into a cornerstone of modern contract law. What appeared to be a bold Victorian marketing gimmick became one of the most famous legal precedents of all time.

𝐀 𝐌𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐞 - 𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐆𝐚𝐦𝐛𝐥𝐞?
The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company advertised a device claimed to prevent influenza. The advertisement promised £100 to anyone who used the smoke ball as directed and still contracted the flu. To demonstrate sincerity, the company stated that £1,000 had been deposited in a bank.

Mrs Louisa Carlill purchased the product, followed the instructions precisely, and nevertheless fell ill. When the company refused to pay, arguing the advertisement was merely “sales puff” and not intended to be legally binding, Mrs Carlill brought proceedings.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
The Court of Appeal examined whether an advertisement could constitute a binding offer. Rather than dismissing the promise as a joke, the court focused on the objective intention created by the advertisement, particularly the reference to money set aside to pay successful claims.

The issue was not what the company claimed it meant, but what a reasonable person would understand from the advertisement.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭’𝐬 𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠
The court held that the advertisement constituted a unilateral offer, accepted by performance when Mrs Carlill used the product as instructed. The promise was enforceable, and the company was legally bound to pay the £100.

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞
The decision established a fundamental principle of contract law: advertisements can create binding obligations where they demonstrate clear intent and invite acceptance by conduct. Marketing language cannot be dismissed as humour when it induces reliance.
More than a century later, the case remains a warning that bold promises in advertising may carry real legal consequences.

If a company publicly promises a reward and invites the world to rely on it, should it be allowed to walk away when someone takes it seriously?

Disclaimer: This post is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. No responsibility is accepted for any loss or harm arising from reliance on this content.

04/04/2026

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐑𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐄𝐠𝐠𝐬 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞: ACCC v Woolworths [2016]

In 2016, the Federal Court of Australia delivered an important reminder that ethical food labels are not mere marketing slogans. The decision clarified how consumer expectations shape the legal meaning of everyday terms like “free range”.

𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐑𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐍𝐚𝐦𝐞 - 𝐨𝐫 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞?
Woolworths sold eggs labelled as “free range”, a term that carries strong ethical and animal welfare connotations. However, evidence showed that the hens were kept in overcrowded conditions, severely limiting their ability to roam outdoors.
For many consumers, the label “free range” suggested hens would have meaningful outdoor access, not merely a nominal or theoretical opportunity.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐫 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission brought proceedings under section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law, arguing that the representation was misleading.
The Court agreed, holding that the ordinary and reasonable consumer would understand free range eggs to involve genuine outdoor access, not densely packed housing systems.

𝐎𝐮𝐭𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞
Woolworths paid penalties, issued corrective advertising, and changed its labelling practices. The case reinforced a key principle of consumer law:
Food labels must reflect reality, not just aspiration.
Where ethical claims influence purchasing decisions, retailers must ensure those claims align with reasonable consumer expectations.

When consumers pay more for ethical food choices, how far should the law go in ensuring labels tell the full truth?

Disclaimer: This post is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. No responsibility is accepted for any loss or harm arising from reliance on this content.

01/04/2026

𝐓𝐡𝐞 $𝟔𝟕 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐏𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞: Pearson v. Chung [2007]

In 2007, a routine visit to a neighborhood dry cleaner escalated into one of the most widely mocked lawsuits in modern legal history. The case became a cautionary tale about excessive litigation and the limits of consumer protection laws.

𝐋𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐓𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐬 - 𝐨𝐫 𝐋𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞?
Roy Pearson Jr., an administrative law judge in Washington, D.C., took a pair of trousers to Custom Cleaners, owned by Jin and Soo Chung. When the pants were temporarily misplaced, Pearson claimed they were lost forever and refused later attempts by the cleaners to return replacement trousers or settle the dispute.
Relying on signs displayed in the shop stating “Satisfaction Guaranteed” and “Same Day Service”, Pearson argued these amounted to enforceable promises. He brought proceedings under local consumer protection laws, ultimately seeking $67 million in damages, later reduced but still extraordinary.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐫 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
The court was required to determine whether ordinary service slogans could reasonably be interpreted as legally binding guarantees justifying massive statutory damages. The key issue was whether a reasonable consumer, viewing the signs in context, would understand them as strict contractual promises rather than general customer service language.
The case tested the outer boundaries of consumer protection legislation.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭’𝐬 𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠
After a bench trial, the court dismissed all claims. It held that the signage did not mislead a reasonable consumer and that the claim was not brought in good faith. The court found the demanded damages to be wholly disproportionate and unsupported by law or fact.

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞
The case attracted international ridicule and became shorthand for frivolous litigation. Beyond the humour, it reinforced an important principle: consumer protection laws are not tools for personal vendettas or windfall claims.
The ruling affirmed that courts will apply common sense when assessing statutory rights and will not stretch the law beyond reasonable limits.

When consumer rights exist to protect fairness, should courts tolerate claims that turn minor disputes into multimillion dollar lawsuits?

Disclaimer: This post is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. No responsibility is accepted for any loss or harm arising from reliance on this content.

21/03/2026

𝐑𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐚𝐫: 𝐄𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐖𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐚𝐭 𝐎𝐱𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬

At Oxbridge Associates, celebrating International Women’s Day is not an annual event, it is a principle we live by every day.

Today, 86.7% of our team are women, a reflection of the culture we have intentionally built, one where women lead, advocate, and shape the future of the legal profession with confidence and authority.

To continue fostering this culture and to support the next generation of female leaders in law, we proudly host “Rising to the Bar”, a professional development initiative designed to empower, mentor, and inspire women in the legal profession.

We are honoured to welcome Deshika Rodrigo, a globally recognised motivational and personal development speaker, who will share insights on leadership, resilience, and unlocking one’s full potential.

At Oxbridge Associates, we believe that when women rise in leadership, the profession rises with them.

“Rising to the Bar” is our commitment to building a future where women lead the law with confidence, integrity, and authority.

09/03/2026

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: ACCC v Coles [2014]

In 2014, the Federal Court of Australia delivered a significant decision that reshaped how supermarkets describe “fresh” food. The ruling served as a powerful reminder that marketing language in trade and commerce must reflect the true nature of the product being sold.

𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐡𝐥𝐲 𝐁𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐫 𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐡𝐥𝐲 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐰𝐞𝐝?

Coles Group launched a nationwide campaign promoting its “Cuisine de France” bread range, using imagery and language designed to evoke the atmosphere of a traditional village bakery. Prominent in store signage and packaging represented the bread as “Baked Today, Sold Today” and “Freshly Baked in Store”. However, the reality was quite different. The bread was partially baked and frozen in overseas factories, including facilities in Denmark, Germany, and Ireland, months before reaching Australia. Once delivered to stores, the loaves were simply finished in the oven for a few minutes to create a crust before being sold.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭

The proceedings were brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission under section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law, which prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct. The court assessed the overall global impression created by the marketing. Rather than analysing individual words in isolation, the court considered how an ordinary consumer would interpret the combined effect of the signage, imagery, and language used in stores.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭’𝐬 𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠

Chief Justice James Allsop held that the representations were misleading and deceptive. The court emphasised that finishing a frozen, par baked loaf is fundamentally different from baking bread from raw ingredients, which is what a reasonable consumer would expect when a product is described as freshly baked.

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞

Coles was fined AUD 2.5 million and required to display correction notices in its stores acknowledging that the representations were misleading. The company was also restrained from using the phrase freshly baked for products made from frozen dough for three years. The decision reinforced an important legal principle in consumer law. In trade and commerce, terms such as “fresh” cannot be used loosely as marketing language when they create a misleading impression for consumers.

Should a supermarket be allowed to describe bread as “fresh” if it is merely finished in store, or does its frozen history matter?

Disclaimer: This post is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. No responsibility is accepted for any loss or harm from relying on this content.

03/03/2026

𝗧𝗵𝗲 "𝗛𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵𝘆" 𝗕𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗳𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗦𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗹: 𝗔𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻𝗮 𝗛𝗼𝗵𝗲𝗻𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗴 𝘃. 𝗙𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗿𝗼 𝗨𝗦𝗔 [2012]

This case remains a powerful example of how marketing “the truth, but not the whole truth” can result in multi-million-dollar consequences. It challenged how food corporations frame selective health claims to influence parents.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀

In 2011, Athena Hohenberg, a mother from California, filed a class action lawsuit against Ferrero USA, the manufacturer of Nutella. She alleged that she was led to believe Nutella was a “healthy and nutritious” breakfast option for her four-year-old daughter.

Her claim focused on Ferrero’s advertising strategy, which:

• Presented Nutella as part of a “balanced breakfast”

• Highlighted wholesome ingredients such as hazelnuts and skimmed milk

• Downplayed that the primary ingredients were sugar and palm oil

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗕𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗝𝗮𝗿

The nutritional panel told a different story:

• Approximately 21 grams of sugar per two tablespoon serving

• Around 11 grams of fat, including 3.5 grams of saturated fat

• 200 calories per serving, closer to a dessert than a staple

The plaintiff argued that the overall marketing created a misleading net impression.

𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗦𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗹𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁

Ferrero did not admit liability but settled the matter in 2012.

The settlement included:

• A 3.05-million-dollar fund for consumers

• Payments of up to 20 dollars per household

• Changes to advertising, website content, and product labelling

• Removal of “balanced breakfast” imagery

• Clearer disclosure of sugar and fat content

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲: 𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴

Under United States consumer protection laws and the Australian Consumer Law, businesses must not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct.

This case illustrates two key principles:

• Even technically true statements can mislead if the overall impression is false

• Manufacturers have a duty to ensure marketing does not exploit consumers limited specialised knowledge

𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗜𝘁 𝗠𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀

The case sent a clear message to the food industry. A “healthy” label cannot shield a brand when the nutritional profile suggests otherwise. Transparency matters. Net impression matters. Is it solely the manufacturer’s responsibility to market honestly, or should consumers carry the burden of reading the fine print?

We welcome your thoughts and perspectives in the comments below.

Disclaimer: This post is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to defame or harm any company, brand, or individual.

Oxbridge Associates

29/05/2026

15/04/2026

13/04/2026

11/04/2026

08/04/2026

04/04/2026

01/04/2026

21/03/2026

09/03/2026

03/03/2026

Address

Opening Hours

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Featured

Share

Category

Monday	8am - 5pm
Tuesday	8am - 5pm
Wednesday	8am - 5pm
Thursday	8am - 5pm
Friday	8am - 5pm
Saturday	8am - 12am