Vinaora Nivo Slider Vinaora Nivo Slider Vinaora Nivo Slider Vinaora Nivo Slider

pageheadingnarrow

malcolm profileMalcolm Robinson
DIRECTOR
Direct: (07) 3210 5207
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Malcolm Robinson has practiced almost solely in litigation for over twenty-five (25) years, with extensive experience in litigation disputes, in all Queensland Courts and Tribunals. He has assisted clients with almost every type of dispute that can arise, from complex litigation in Courts, to Tribunal reviews, to the simpler – but very significant to the client – employment issues.

Malcolm is passionate about finding solutions to difficult problems; fixing what appears to be incapable of any favourable resolution. He considers the problems of all clients are deserving of attention.

His early assessment of the appropriate strategy in matters produces a clear and focussed route to achieve an outcome – rather than mere conveyor-belt process.

Some of the more significant matters in which Malcolm has assisted clients include:

COMMERCIAL LITIGATION

  • Appeared in the Supreme Court of Queensland - Court of Appeal, against Queens Counsel, and achieved a successful result for a client;
  • He has appeared in all Courts in many types of applications for orders from the Court, whether or not opposed by the other party;
  • He conducted a seven (7) day Trial in the Supreme Court, as advocate and against Counsel, defending a claim of misleading and deceptive conduct pursuant to the Trade Practices Act;
  • Appeared in the Supreme Court in a number of matters and obtained orders for specific performance of contracts of sales;
  • Applied to the Supreme Court for appointment of receiver upon non-compliance with an order for specific performance;
  • Conducted litigation to recover investments funds lost in a managed investment of a property development;
  • Defended a claim brought against a client for forty-eight million dollars ($48,000,000.00); and
  • Conducted the trial for numerous civil hearings in the Magistrates Court.


BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES

Malcolm has been active in the building and construction industry for more than a decade.

He has acted in commercial construction disputes, on behalf of developers and builders and for subcontractors, arising from Australian Standard contract, as well as relating to custom drafted contracts.

BCIPA ADJUDICATION

Malcolm has represented both builders and subcontractors in BCIPA adjudications, including Supreme Court applications regarding jurisdiction of adjudicators to make decisions.

Following adjudication decision, sometimes it is necessary to take enforcement action to recover the funds at the earliest time.

ESTATE LITIGATION and FAMILY PROVISION CLAIMS

Malcolm has undertaken the estate administration of a significant number of estates.

He has also acted in many matters pursuing or opposing family provision claims.

TRADEMARKS AND COPYRIGHT

Malcolm has registered a number of trademarks for clients and acted in infringement litigation relating to trademarks and copyright.

DEBT RECOVERY

Malcolm has undertaken debt recovery work from single matters for amounts both small and large, to large ledgers for publicly listed companies.

He has conducted trials on behalf of Plaintiffs in the Magistrates Court, sometimes where the Defendant has been represented by Counsel, sometimes by a solicitor and other times where the Defendant has been self-represented. A number of Trials have resulted in the successful prosecutions of claim for publicly listed companies where the Defendant was represented by Counsel.

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS IN QCAT

Malcolm has conducted a large number of administrative review matters in QCAT (and the CCT) – particularly on behalf of the QBCC. In doing so he has appeared at hearings against Counsel, solicitors and where the other party is self-represented.

As a result, he has been involved in review of licensing matters in relation to a number of the most significant building companies in Queensland.

Examples of administrative reviews are:

1. SUSPENSIONS & CANCELATIONS

Malcolm has acted for the QBCC in a number of matters involving suspension and/or cancellation of a builder’s licence. Many matters relate to a decision that the Minimum Financial Requirements for licensing were not complied with or that the licensee was no longer considered a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

Citation

Name of Parties

Link

[2010] QCAT

T&M Buckley Pty Ltd t/as Shailer constructions v QBCC

Not reported

[2012] QCAT 131

Cavalier Homes Brisbane Pty Ltd v QBCC

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2012/QCAT12-131.pdf

[2014] QCAT

Eco Steel Homes Pty Ltd

Not reported

[2015] QCAT

Watermark Homes Pty Ltd

Not reported

[2016] QCAT 85

“Builder” v QBCC

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2016/QCAT16-085.pdf

[2017] QCAT 238

NGE v QBCC

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2017/QCAT17-238.pdf

 

 

2. OTHER LICENSING DECISIONS

Citation

Name of Parties

Link

[2016] QCAT 176

Archer v QBCC

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2016/QCAT16-176.pdf


3. EXCLUDED INDIVIDUAL REVIEWS

Decisions as to whether or not a person should be categorised as an Excluded Individual pursuant to section 56AF of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act (“the Act”).

Following is a table of review hearings Malcolm has conducted as advocate in relation to this type of matter:

Citation

Name of Parties

Link

[2011]QCAT47

McClintock v QBSA

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2011/QCAT11-047.pdf

[2011]QCAT210

Marangone v QBSA

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2011/QCAT11-210.pdf

[2010]QCAT383

Gallagher v QBSA

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2010/QCAT10-383.pdf

[2010]QCAT188

Meredith v QBSA

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2010/QCAT10-188.pdf

QR027-09

Corcoran v QBSA

Unreported

2012

Arthurs v QBSA

Unreported

[2013]QCAT279

Raptis v QBSA

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2013/QCAT13-279.pdf

[2013]QCAt469

Buckley V QBSA

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2013/QCAT13-469.pdf

[2014]QCAT228

Walker v QBCC

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2014/QCAT14-228.pdf

[2015]QCAT 39

Crocker v QBCC

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2015/QCAT15-039.pdf

[2015]QCAT 16

Wright v QBCC

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2015/QCAT15-016.pdf

[2015]

Halstead v QBCC

Not reported

[2016]QCAT 24

Carmichael v QBCC

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2016/QCAT16-024.pdf

[2016]QCAT 424

Casey v QBCC

https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2016/QCAT16-424.pdf

[2018] QCAT 100

Paddon v QBCC

https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2018/QCAT18-100.pdf

[2018] QCAT

Priest v QBCC

Not yet reported

 

4. PERMITTED INDIVIDUAL REVIEWS

Decisions as to whether or not a person should be categorised as a Permitted Individual pursuant to section 56AD(1) of the Act, require an analysis of whether all reasonable steps were taken by the individual to prevent the coming into existence of the “Relevant Event” (i.e. a bankruptcy event or a corporate insolvency event).

Consequently, this means that the analysis required in a permitted individual review requires:

a. On occasion:

i. Review of the financial statements to determine if the cash flow and capitalisation of the company were managed appropriately;

ii. A review of the appropriateness of litigation undertaken;

iii. Consideration of compliance with director’s duties pursuant to the Corporations Act;

iv. Consideration of insolvency issues that arise pursuant to the Corporations Act; and

v. Whether there has been any phoenix activity;

b. In all cases, the proper application of the statutory test provided in section 56AD(8).

The following is a table of review hearings Malcolm has conducted as advocate in relation to this type of matter:

Citation

Name of Parties

Link

[2008]QCCTB184

Thornton v QBSA

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QCCTB/2008/184.html

[2009]QCCTB197

Gibbs v QBSA

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QCCTB/2009/197.html

[2009 QCCTB238

Ricketts v QBSA

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QCCTB/2009/238.html

[2010]QCAT121

Spasevski v QBSA

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2010/QCAT10-121.pdf

[2010]QCAT207

Fogg, Vicca & Hallett v QBSA

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2010/QCAT10-203.pdf

[2010]QCAT335

Vuu v QBSA

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2010/QCAT10-335.pdf

[2010]QCAT383

Gallagher v QBSA

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2010/QCAT10-383.pdf

[2010]QCAT441

Ernst v QBSA

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2010/QCAT10-441.pdf

[2010]QCAT481

Goodellis v QBSA

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2010/QCAT10-481.pdf

[2010]QCAT662

Haggett v QBSA

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2010/QCAT10-662.pdf

[2011]QCAT25

Beerling v QBSA

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2011/QCAT11-025.pdf

[2011]QCAT454

Pritchard v QBSA

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2011/QCAT11-454.pdf

[2011]QCAT611

Grofski v QBSA

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2011/QCAT11-611.pdf

[2012]QCAT146

Meredith v QBSA

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2012/QCAT12-146.pdf

[2012]QCAT209

Cameron v QBSA

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2012/QCAT12-209.pdf

[2012]QCAT210

Sims v QBSA

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2012/QCAT12-210.pdf

[2013]QCAT309

Uljarevic v QBSA

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2013/QCAT13-309.pdf

[2013]QCAT

Bates-Brownsword v QBSA

Unreported

[2013]QCAT

Schulz v QBSA

Unreported

[2013]QCAT 84

Vadasz v QBSA

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2013/QCAT13-084.pdf

Note this decision was overturned upon appeal

[2013]QCAT 121

Jensen v QBSA

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2013/QCAT13-121.pdf

[2013]QCAT505

Bradley v QBSA

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2013/QCAT13-505.pdf

[2013]QCAT433

Gauci v QBSA

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2013/QCAT13-433.pdf

[2013]QCAT472

Samimi v QBSA

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2013/QCAT13-472.pdf

[2014]QCAT173

Dancey v QBCC

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2014/QCAT14-173.pdf

[2014]QCAT 100

Melenewycz v QBCC

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2014/QCAT14-100.pdf

[2014]QCAT 222

Mudri v QBCC

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2014/QCAT14-222.pdf

[2014]QCAT 203

Coconut v QBCC

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2014/QCAT14-203.pdf

[2014]

Meredyth v QBCC

Not reported

[2014]QCAT 164

Ausfire Doors and Penetrations v QBCC

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2014/QCAT14-164.pdf

[2014]QCAT 164

Ryan v QBCC

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2014/QCAT14-164.pdf

[2015]QCAT 100

D’Arro v QBCC

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2015/QCAT15-100.pdf

[2014]QCAT 566

Mair v QBCC

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2014/QCAT14-566.pdf

[2015]QCAT 245

Speedy v QBCC

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2015/QCAT15-245.pdf

[2015]QCAT 243

Dobson v QBCC

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2015/QCAT15-243.pdf

[2015]QCAT 338

Bemportato v QBCC

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2016/QCAT16-085.pdf

[2018] QCAT 230

Van Houdt v QBCC (No. 2)

https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2018/QCAT18-230.pdf


Whilst the above list indicates the hearings conducted, more important are the numerous other matters (far more in number than the hearings) in which the matter was resolved, through negotiation. This has enabled resolution of the correct result without the cost of hearing, either by withdrawal of the application or by agreement to change the decision.

5. DECISIONS REGARDING ADEQUACY OF BUILDING WORK

Malcolm has controlled many files for QBCC relating to decisions pursuant to section 72 of the Act, where upon a complaint from an owner of a property, the QBCC can decide to, or decide not to, issue a direction to the builder to rectify or complete that work.

6. DECISIONS REGARDING THE INSURANCE SCHEME

Malcolm has controlled many files for QBCC pursuant to the statutory insurance scheme set up by the Act including:

  • Decisions regarding claims from owners; or
  • The correct scope of works for rectification or completion.

7. DECISIONS REGARDING UNSATISFACTORY CONDUCT OF VARIOUS TRADES & PROFESSIONS

Malcolm has appeared as advocate in the following Tribunal reviews regarding the conduct of various trades and professions:

Citation

Name of Parties

Link

[2016] QCAT 353

Neller v QBCC

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2016/QCAT16-353.pdf

[2016] QCAT

Berthelsen v QBCC

Unreported

[2016] QCAT 3

GJI Pty Ltd v QBCC;

JKL v QBCC

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2017/QCAT17-003.pdf

[2016] QCAT 480

Tracey v QBCC

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2016/QCAT16-480.pdf


8. APPEALS

Malcolm has acted in a number of appeals from administrative decisions. These appeals include:

Citation

Name of Parties

Link

[2011]QCATA155

Ernst v QBSA

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2011/QCATA11-155.pdf

[2011]QCATA158

Corcoran v QBSA

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2011/QCATA11-158.pdf

[2010]QCATA050

QBSA v Meredith

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2010/QCATA10-050.pdf

[2014] QCA 62

QBCC v Meredith

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2014/QCA14-062.pdf

[2011]QCATA310

McClintock v QBSA

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2011/QCATA11-310.pdf

[2013]QCATA152

QBSA v Meredith

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2013/QCATA13-152.pdf

[2013]QCATA219

QBSA v Plotkin

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2013/QCATA13-219.pdf

[2013]QCATA238

QBSA v Robuild

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2013/QCATA13-238.pdf

[2014]QCATA28

QBCC v Jensen

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2014/QCATA14-028.pdf

[2014] QCA 81

QBCC v Robuild

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2014/QCA14-081.pdf

[2014] QCA 307

QBCC v Arthurs

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2014/QCA14-307.pdf

[2014]QCATA1

QBCC v Vadasz

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2014/QCATA14-001.pdf

[2014]QCATA 154

Gauci v QBCC

http://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/search/index.php?keywords=gauci&court=QCAT&offset=1

[2015]QCATA 2

Ryan v QBCC

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2015/QCATA15-002.pdf

[2015]QCATA 78

QBCC v Mudri

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2015/QCATA15-078.pdf

[2016]QCATA183

QBCC v Mudri

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2016/QCATA16-183.pdf

2017]QCATA 116

Van Houdt v QBCC

https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2017/QCATA17-116.pdf

COMMERCIAL DISPUTES

The problem:

Malcolm received referral from another lawyer of a company dispute. That lawyer proposed a Supreme Court winding up due to deadlock between directors.

The fix:

Rather than incur the cost of liquidating the company and thereby removing all control, steps were taken to remove deadlock. A company meeting was orchestrated at which the recalcitrant director was removed from the company. At minimal cost, the company could continue to trade happily.

The result:

Company saved, disrupting director removed, no Court proceedings required, cost comparatively minimal.

   *****

The problem:

A non-director shareholder of a building company was stressed to the point of seeing a psychiatrist. The director/shareholder was making allegations about him and holding his interests in the company to ransom.

The fix:

Rights of inspection under the Corporations Act were exercised, providing enough information to attack the company. The tables were turned, resulting in withdrawal of allegations, and payment out of the shareholding, plus legal costs.

The result:

Financial problem fixed, stressed removed, no longer seeing psychiatrist.

   *****

The problem:

An overseas landlord had received notice that a Bailiff was executing a Judgment. It turned out there had been a neighbourhood dispute, resulting in litigation which had been served on his Brisbane agent who had not notified him. The Plaintiff had obtained default judgment - https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2013/QDC13-110.pdf, and indicated that any attempt to set aside the judgment would be opposed vigorously.

The fix:

Judgment was set aside - https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2013/QDC13-298.pdf

and a costs Order obtained -https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2014/QDC14-109.pdf

The result:

Bailiff’s warrant removed, Judgment removed, costs recovered.


ADVOCACY

Best summarised from an excerpt from QCAT decision in GHI v QBCC; JKL v QBCC [2016] QCAT 3:

[125]       I record my appreciation of the thorough and balanced approach displayed by Mr Robinson in discharging the Respondent’s [QBCC] duty to assist the Tribunal to make its decisions in these reviews.


COMMERCIAL LITIGATION

The problem:

Investors had made investment in a joint venture development, however had no reports or accounting, and it appeared almost all of the lots were sold.

The fix:

Caveat the remaining lots and commence proceedings for declaration and sale.

The result:

Sale controlled by statutory trustee who accounted to all participants.


BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES

The problem:

A builder came to me, stressed to the utmost due to alleged defects in his work. He could see the allegations would remove all his assets and credibility, and therefore his livelihood.

The fix:

The dispute analysed, forceful opposition to the claim provided, third party claims commenced.

The result:

The matter did not proceed further against the builder. He is back building houses.

 

*****

The problem:

A charity had received advice from a national firm that it would lose a building dispute and must pay $80,000.

The fix:

After assessment of the claims made, forceful criticism of the pleading, demanding amendment before any progression of the action occurred.

The result:

Matter did not proceed. As 2 years expired, the matter was finished, at minimal cost, no settlement payment required to be made.


BCIPA ADJUDICATION

The problem:

A construction company received an Adjudication Application from a scaffolding subcontractor, clearly prepared by a law firm experienced in BCIPA, in circumstances where unfortunately there had been no Payment Schedule – hence no new matter could be raised in response now. The client was concerned that payment of an Adjudication Decision would not be recoverable due to the suspected solvency position of the claimant.

The fix:

Following initial review of the material, the Adjudication Response criticising a number of jurisdictional issues was delivered, with a covering letter to the claimant’s solicitors explaining why they must withdraw – and pay the costs of the adjudicator.

The Claimant responded by withdrawing the adjudication and paying the costs of the adjudication.

The result:

Win, at low cost, in a short period of time, with certainty

 

*****

The problem:

An engineer had been persuaded to assist a builder, and agreed to fund some of the works on a commercial construction. The amount outstanding was significant to the engineer’s cashflow and therefore viability. The builder raised numerous allegations in response – whilst wrongful, likely to delay recovery for a very long time.

The fix:

Make demand by Payment Claim, pursue the adjudication process ultimately attaining a Magistrates Court Judgment. When the builder claimed to have no money, wind up proceedings, without a statutory demand, which resulted in payment in full.

The result:

Full recovery, at low cost, with certainty and without the protracted delay.


ESTATE LITIGATION & FAMILY PROVISION CLAIMS

The problem:

An estate received a family provision claim made by a disabled claimant, represented by no-win, no-fee lawyers who sought a very large proportion of the estate. The claimant obtained an occupational therapist report demonstrating the claimant had numerous needs.

The fix:

Obtain a costing for the various needs (which was less than the claimant’s share under the Will), the estate offered to buy those items for the claimant and deliver them. The claimant’s lawyers did not accept the offer.

The result:

It had been demonstrated that the claimant did not really have a need for the items, notwithstanding the report. After further negotiation, matter resolved on fair settlement thereafter.


DEFAMATION

The problem:

Over a number of years, the clients had been defamed on Facebook alleging involvement in paedophilia, elder abuse and tax fraud.

The fix:

Injunction obtained in the District Court, with forcible removal of the scandalous defamation, a mandatory requirement for publication of an apology on the defendant’s Facebook banner, together with damages assessed at $100,000 (which of course, was not recoverable!)

The result:

Win, with full vindication and an apology.


DEBT RECOVERY

Malcolm worked for many years at a law firm that specialised in debt recovery. He was responsible at a senior level for managing substantial ledgers of debts.

As a result, he has undertaken debt recovery work from single matters for amounts both small and large, to a high volume of matters for publicly listed companies. From time to time, the debt recovery includes caveats, subcontractor’s charges or BCIPA to assist in the process.

He has conducted trials on behalf of Plaintiffs in the Magistrates Court, sometimes where the Defendant has been represented by Counsel, sometimes by a solicitor and other times where the Defendant has been self-represented.


ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS IN QCAT

Malcolm worked for many years at a law firm that specialised in debt recovery. He was responsible at a senior level for managing substantial ledgers of debts.

As a result, he has undertaken debt recovery work from single matters for amounts both small and large, to a high volume of matters for publicly listed companies. From time to time, the debt recovery includes caveats, subcontractor’s charges or BCIPA to assist in the process.

He has conducted trials on behalf of Plaintiffs in the Magistrates Court, sometimes where the Defendant has been represented by Counsel, sometimes by a solicitor and other times where the Defendant has been self-represented.

Malcolm has conducted a large number of administrative review matters in QCAT (and the CCT) – particularly on behalf of the QBCC in relation to:

-     
licensing issues;
-     
decisions to issue, or not to issue, a direction to rectify; and
-     
decisions pursuant to the statutory insurance policy.

In doing so, he has appeared at hearings against Counsel, against solicitors and where the other party is self-represented (which required significantly more care than against lawyers).


SUMMARY

For these reasons, Malcolm has an excellent reputation as a senior commercial litigation practitioner in Brisbane.

QUALIFICATIONS

• Bachelor of Laws (QUT)
• Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Queensland
• Solicitor of the High Court of Australia

MEMBERSHIPS

• Member of the Queensland Law Society
• Member of Building Dispute Practitioners’ Society