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 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.
Commercial Dispute
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.
Commercial Dispute
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.
Commercial Dispute
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.
Advocacy
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.
Commercial Litigation
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.
Building & Construction Disputes
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.
Building & Construction Disputes
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
BCIPA Adjudication
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.
BCIPA Adjudication
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.
Estate Litigation & Family Provision Claims
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.
Defamation
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.
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.

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).
Administrative Reviews in QCAT

Contact Us