$2.7 Million Recovered in Seven Days

In a recent legal battle at the County Court of Victoria, an international vehicle parts manufacturer faced a significant challenge: recovering a substantial debt of $1.3 m from an Australian distribution partner. However, what seemed like a straightforward debt recovery case took a contentious turn when the defendants filed a $1.3 m counterclaim.

The distributor counterclaimed, contending our client breached an alleged exclusive distribution agreement and/or engaged in misleading conduct and as such, sought damages under the Australian Consumer Law.

These allegations posed a serious threat not only to our client’s financial interests but also to their reputation in the

A potential $4 million liability looming on the horizon would be nothing short of stressful for any business. After all, the likelihood of bankruptcy or significant layoffs to pay such a claim could mean the end of the business.

Our client, an international hotel manager, faced a commercial dispute with an owner of a hotel that our client managed.

The owner accused our client of breaching duties and implied contractual terms, leading to alleged losses of nearly $4 million, including damage and loss of revenue.

Our client counterclaimed for $300,000 in unpaid fees. 

We successfully negotiated a settlement, resulting in

When running a business, trust is paramount.

Unfortunately, our clients found out the hard way that a director in their company had been misusing company funds to the tune of $2.5 million for his own personal gain and to benefit his private entities.

Time is of the Essence

When dealing with cases of financial misconduct, time is of the essence. We swiftly obtained freezing orders against the director personally and his shareholding entity which traded with his other businesses. This was essential in preventing assets from being dissipated, leaving our clients (as creditors) with little to recover.

Once we had

Tailored and well-structured standard form contracts are the bedrock of robust commercial relationships, for both business and consumer relationships. They provide clarity for all parties and ensure businesses are compliant with their legal obligations.

By proactively outlining and communicating equitable terms by way of a standard form contract, businesses not only mitigate the risk of customer actions in respect of the contract for uncertainty or unfair terms, but also cultivate trust, credibility, and enduring relationships with clients.

However, even the most robust contract will not prevent claims of unfair contract terms.

This was demonstrated in a case where we represented

Read more

Onerous and punishing – the new unfair contract terms regime will affect thousands of businesses standard form of contracts.

Is your business prepared for the changes? 

Join us at 12pm on Wednesday, May 24th as we hear Anna Taylor – Principal at Results Legal and Jeff George – Head of Risk and Group Services of NCI discuss the upcoming changes to the unfair contract terms regime which come into force on 9 November 2023.

About the Webinar

The changes to the unfair contract terms regime bring about significant changes which will likely affect all

On 15 September 2021, the District Court of New South Wales handed down a judgment in Hume Plasterboards v Best Interiors[1] which reaffirmed the ‘wives’ special equity’, otherwise known as the Yerkey v Jones[2] defence. Even though the ‘wife’ (or de facto partner) of the company’s director signed a guarantee, the successful use of the defence meant that she was not liable for the debt incurred.

When it comes to written agreements in a commercial context, attention is often paid to the drafting and scope of terms. However, evidence suggests, that often, “incorporation” of those terms is key.  In other words, the scope of the terms has no weight if they are not properly incorporated into the contract.

On 1 January 2021, new insolvency reforms to support small business commenced and COVID-19 temporary insolvency protections came to an end.

This is good news for creditors who can now more easily proceed with creditor’s statutory demands in the usual course as well as bankruptcy notices, provided company debtors have not applied for temporary relief.

The recent Victorian Court of Appeal judgment in Cant v Mad Brothers Earthmoving Pty Ltd [2020] VSCA 198 clarifies the circumstances in which a payment from a third party may constitute an unfair preference. The decision is important to any creditors with potential exposure to unfair preference claims and for insolvency practitioners seeking to pursue such claims.