Our Legal Practice Areas
We pride ourselves on providing clear, timely and professional advice, being innovative in our approach to both the conduct and advocacy of matters in all Courts and Tribunals.
Whilst our primary focus is on disputes and litigation, our firm also provides high quality legal services in the following areas of practice:
Commercial Litigation
Through years of experience, our litigation lawyers have a reputation as assertive advocates of our clients’ rights and interests.
Administrative Law
Decisions by government bodies can usually be reviewed in QCAT, AAT or the Supreme Court.
Building & Construction Disputes
Disputes regarding commercial and residential construction can raise complex and detailed issues, which are best dealt with by experienced professionals.
Defamation
Defamation can be a highly volatile area of law – for obvious reasons. It requires claim assessment by an experienced professional .
Debt Recovery
Debt recovery should be simple and straight forward, but it takes experience to make it so.
Estate Litigation
These types of issues require compassion and care, but combined with realistic commercial assessment of the case.
Commercial & Property Law
Property transactions are the most important legal event in most people’s lives. As a result, they can also be the most stressful.
Insolvency
We offer insolvency services for business creditors and insolvency practitioners.
Examples of Work
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 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.
[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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.