After our brief hiatus, we are back with our Cross-Examining Cyber Director Series. In this series, we sit down with some of Australia's leading directors to discuss the challenges and opportunities facing boards in an increasingly complex cyber landscape.

In this episode, we cross-examine Anne Templeman-Jones, one of Australia's most accomplished business leaders and non-executive directors. Anne has served on the boards of Commonwealth Bank, GUD Holdings Limited, Worley Limited, and Blackmores (as Chair). She has also held board and leadership roles with Cuscal Limited, HT&E Limited, Pioneer Credit Limited, TAL Superannuation Fund… the list goes on. Anne is also passionate about technology and cyber security – what a combination!

In this conversation, Anne shares insights from her boardroom experience, including how directors can navigate emerging technology risks, approach cyber resilience, and balance governance with growth and innovation. Drawing on a career that has spanned multiple industries, Anne reflects on what makes an effective director and the lessons that boards can apply in an increasingly uncertain digital environment.

Thanks again for listening. This is Cross-Examining Anne Templeman-Jones. Here we go…

In Part 2 of our climate reporting series, we build on the themes from Episode 50 and shift the focus to what comes next.

As the first wave of disclosures has wrapped up, attention has turned to the next climate reporting cycles - particularly for June and September year-end companies. The question now is: what lessons can organisations take forward?

In this episode, we unpack key takeaways from the first round of sustainability reporting and explore how they can be applied in practice for future reporters. We also take a closer look at ASIC’s early observations and share our perspective on what these mean, and how companies can consider them going forward.

Welcome back to The Third Wheel. In this episode, we turn our attention to one of the new features of the annual reporting landscape: mandatory climate disclosures.

With the first wave of reporting now completed, we thought it was the perfect moment to pause and reflect. What’s working well? Where are organisations still finding their footing? And what challenges are starting to surface?

This episode kicks off a two-part series, where we explore early trends emerging from the first round of disclosures. We share our initial observations, highlight recurring hurdles or challenges, and point to areas where reporting is already showing real progress.

In this episode of On Just Terms, partners Jason Betts and Melissa Gladstone sit down with Dr Peter Cashman, adjunct professor at UNSW and leading barrister, to discuss the evolution of Australia’s class action regime.

Drawing on decades of experience, Dr Cashman reflects on its role in improving corporate governance, product safety and access to justice, while addressing ongoing challenges around cost, delay and efficiency. He also outlines a range of reforms aimed at creating a faster, fairer and more effective class action system for all participants.

In this episode of Inside Employment, Natalie Gaspar and Lucy Boyd are joined by HSF Kramer Disputes Partner, Melissa Gladstone to explore the rise of employment class actions in Australia and why they have become one of the fastest-growing litigation risks for employers.

Natalie, Lucy and Melissa discuss the factors driving this trend, how employment class actions differ from traditional workplace disputes, and the unique challenges they create for employers. They also share practical steps organisations can take to mitigate risk, including governance, early issue detection and prompt remediation.

In this episode, we step back from our case study (covered in Episode 1 Parts One and Two) to address a key question: how does GenAI compare to technology-assisted review (TAR)?

David Beck (Head of eDiscovery UK & EMEA), Meghan Ryan (Senior Manager, eDiscovery) and Danbee Kim (Head of Digital Legal, US) cut through the hype to explore how these technologies work in practice. They examine why TAR remains central to large-scale review - particularly for precision, consistency and defensibility - and where GenAI adds value, including contextual insight and early case analysis.

Drawing on real-world experience, they show why GenAI is often reinforcing (not replacing) TAR, and reframe the debate around a more practical question: what is the right approach for the matter, the data and the client?

This is the third episode of "Cross-examining AI", HSF Kramer's podcast series on disputes and AI where we unpack the key developments that are shaping litigation. In this episode we look at the use of AI by public bodies following a recent judgment on the lawfulness of the Metropolitan Police’s live facial recognition technology, as well as discussing some of the key IP issues that AI developers and users are currently confronting. This episode is hosted by Martin Hevey, a senior associate in our disputes team, who is joined by Andrew Lidbetter and Jasveer Randhawa from our public law and regulatory team, and Peter Dalton, a partner in the cyber security and IP practices.

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

• Civil Justice Council publishes update on consultation responses regarding use of AI for preparing court documents
• Lessons for AI use by public authorities in Divisional Court’s decision on lawfulness of facial recognition technology

In this July wrap up edition of the public law podcast, Jasveer Randhawa is joined by HSF Kramer partners Nusrat Zar and James Wood. They start with an update on ECHR and proportionality, examining recent developments in A1P1 property rights, following the decisions in Dana Astra and BYL. The discussion then turns to practical takeaways for those advising on contentious regulatory matters, including the High Court’s refusal of permission to challenge a late application in Intelligent Land Investments Group, and the evidential threshold required when seeking to restrain the publication of public authority decisions in Euro Car Parks Ltd and South East Water. They also examine the courts’ evolving approach where regulators overstep, as illustrated by R (University of Sussex) v Office for Students, alongside recent High Court guidance on the correct test to be applied in energy price control appeals. To conclude, they flag the Divisional Court's decision on the lawfulness of facial recognition technology and the useful lessons it holds for the future use of AI by public authorities.

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