Shamrock Civil Engineering Pty Ltd v Cleanaway Solid Waste Pty Ltd [2025] QCA 178
Link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QCA/2025/178.html
Director, Professional Services Review v Yoong [2025] FCAFC 95, 25 July 2025
Alexander Psaltis (led by Nitra Kidson KC) was successful in this appeal which clarified that the Director, Professional Services Review has a broad power to require the production of clinical records pursuant to compulsory notices issued in connection with the Director’s review of inappropriate practice by medical practitioners in rendering or initiating services for which medicare benefits are payable.
Link - http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2025/95.html
Payload Industries Pty Ltd v Melco Engineering Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2025] FCA 701, 26 June 2025
Alexander Psaltis recently appeared (with Lois Bullen) for the administrators of the defendant company in successfully obtaining an adjournment of a winding up application to enable the creditors to vote on a proposal for a deed of company arrangement at the second meeting of creditors.
Link - https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2025/701.html
Blue Dog Group Pty Ltd v Credit Suisse Equities (Australia) Limited & Ors [2025] QSC 101, 17 June 2025, Williams J
This is an important recent decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, concerning an application to discontinue a representative proceeding (class action), and whether such a discontinuance ends the suspension of the limitation periods of the claims of group members to which the proceeding relates.
Williams J held that it did not, and made orders on the respondents’ cross-application, providing that such limitation periods would begin to run again after the discontinuance took effect.
Philippa Ahern appeared for the applicant, and Will LeMass appeared for the respondents who led the cross-application.
Link - https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QSC/2025/101.html
Kozik v Redlands City Council [2025] QSC 124, 4 June 2025, Treston J
Link - https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QSC/2025/124.html
York Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Tomkins Commercial & Industrial Builders Pty Ltd [2025] QCA 39, 25 March 2025, Flanagan JA
Link - https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QCA/2025/39.html
HDTY and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2025] ARTA 98, 14 February 2025, Senior Member A Nikolic
Alexander White appeared for the successful respondent in an application for merits review of a decision made under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
Link - https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/ARTA/2025/98.html
Puohotaua v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 1491, 20 December 2024, Sarah C Derrington J
Alexander White appeared for the successful first respondent in the judicial review of a decision of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The applicant alleged that the AAT denied him procedural fairness by failing to warn him of his privilege against self-incrimination.
The Court dismissed the application for judicial review on two bases.
First, the Court found the applicant was not entitled to assert the privilege because there was no real risk of prosecution arising from the questions he was asked.
Second, even if there had been some denial of procedural fairness in the hearing before the AAT, that denial was not material in the sense that there was no prospect of the AAT reaching a different decision, even if the applicant had been given adequate warning of the privilege against self-incrimination. That conclusion arose because of the other evidence of the applicant’s conduct that was before the AAT (and in respect of which the privilege could not apply).
Link - https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2024/1491.html
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v A One Multi Services Pty Ltd (No 4) [2024] FCA 1469, 18 December 2024, Derrington J
Mark Steele KC and Jane Menzies appeared for ASIC in this application by the receivers appointed pursuant to s. 1323 of the Corporations Act 2001. The receivers sought an indemnity from ASIC in relation to an expected shortfall between assets recovered by them, and their expenses, remuneration and costs. Derrington J refused the receivers’ application for an indemnity.
Link - https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2024/1469.html
Stillwater Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v Stanwell Corporation Ltd [2024] FCA 1382, 4 December 2024, Derrington J
Peter Franco KC and Jane Menzies appeared for the First Respondent.
Link - https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2024/1382.html
Devine Constructions Pty Ltd v Heinrich Constructions Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 285, 22 November 2024, Kelly J
Brent Reading (led by Gareth Beacham KC) appeared for the successful Applicant in this proceeding concerning r. 376 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (amendment after limitation period). The Respondents opposed the relief sought, primarily on the basis that the “new” cause of action for which the Applicant sought leave to plead did not “arise out the same facts or substantially the same facts as a cause of action for which relief has already been claimed” (see r. 376(4) of the UCPR). Following a detailed consideration of the relevant authorities, Justice Kelly rejected the Respondents’ arguments.
Link - https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QSC/2024/285.html
Rusbridge v Lake Fox Limited [2024] QSC 279, 15 November 2024, Freeburn J
Hannah Lilley (led by Michael Hodge KC) appeared for the successful second defendant, the plaintiff in this third party proceeding, which focused on the construction of a clause in a commercial contract relating to insurances. The third party was found to have breached the contract for failing to procure public liability insurance naming the second defendant as an additional insured or a person to whom the benefit of insurance extends for its respective rights and interests.
Link - https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QSC/2024/279.html
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v ALAMMC Developments Pty Ltd (No 1) [2024] FCA 1275, 4 November 2024, O’Sullivan J
Mark Steele KC (leading Sarida McLeod and Leo Freckelton) appeared for ASIC in this successful application for the appointment of receivers to thirteen corporate defendants, and to the estates of two natural persons, each of whom was being investigated for possible breaches of the Corporations Act 2001. Mr Assaf SC and Mr Strickland appeared for the unsuccessful defendants.
Link - https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2024/1275.html
RE Oakey Pty Ltd v Canadian Solar Construction (Australia) Pty Ltd [2024] QCA 202, 29 October 2024, Bond and Boddice JJA and Wilson J
Mark Steele KC and Brent Reading appeared for the successful respondent in this appeal, involving questions of contractual construction, the construction of the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017, misleading and deceptive conduct and unconscionable conduct.
Link - https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QCA/2024/202.html
Street v State of Western Australia [2024] FCA 1368, 29 October 2024, Murphy J
Andrew Crowe KC and Max Walker appeared for the State of Western Australia on an application for court approval of settlement of a class action in respect of the WA Stolen wages litigation.
On 17 October 2023, the dispute settled for “up to” $180.4M on the basis of $16,500 per eligible claimant (up to a maximum of 10,000 claimants) hence a maximum of $165M plus a maximum of $15.4M for party and party costs.
At the time of settlement the number of potential eligible claimants registered with Shine Lawyers (representing the lead Applicant Mr Street) was quite low and it was not known how many claimants might ultimately be found to be eligible claimants. Hence there was a settlement of up to a maximum amount based upon the numbers who might ultimately be found to be eligible.
The relatively low number of registrants at the time of settlement triggered an intensive registration campaign by Shine Lawyers post settlement which substantially increased the number of registrants but at significant cost. Approximately $12M in legal fees was incurred post settlement.
The State supported approval of the settlement and orders approving the settlement were made.
On the approval hearing the State:
(a) Sought a reduction in the commission payment sought by the funder which position had been foreshadowed in the Deed of Settlement;
(b) Opposed paying the funder’s costs of obtaining After the Event (ATE) Insurance in an amount of approximately $1M; and
(c) Sought a reduction in the fees payable to Shine Lawyers in particular in respect of the fees of approximately $9M which had been charged as professional fees for engaging law clerks in the post settlement registration process.
Funder’s Commission
The commission sought by the funder was 20% of gross – ie. 20% of the total amount payable by the State including party and party costs. The State’s position was that commission should only be payable on the total amount payable to class members after deductions approved by the Court. Ultimately Murphy J reduced the commission payable to 16% of gross which amounted to a reduction of approximately $6M which monies are now available to be distributed to class members. The decision to reduce the commission payable primarily turned upon the particular relevant fact that of the total costs of $31.5M the funder met $13.5M with the balance met by Shine Lawyers on a speculative basis.
ATE Insurance Costs
The State’s position was that the ATE cost was a cost of the funder doing business taken out because of the funder’s internal policy requirements. Murphy J concluded that the class members obtained a benefit from the ATE cover ($5M) as it operated to reduce the funder’s exposure to adverse costs which reduced the amount the funder had at risk and thus the quantum of the funding commission. Murphy J. allowed these costs as a deduction from the settlement sum.
Professional Fees for Law Clerks
The amount actually paid to law clerks (primarily undergraduate law students) was not disclosed. The Costs Referee allowed the amount charged by Shine Lawyers as professional fees. The extent of the work undertaken was not challenged by the State only the amount charged per hour notwithstanding the finding of the Costs Referee. Murphy J. found that the costs for law clerks should be reduced by approximately $4M (including approximately $2M treated by Shine Lawyers as a discount). Hence another approximately $4M (in addition to the $6M reduction for funder’s commission) is now available to class members.
Link - https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2024/1368.html
Paladin Projects Pty Ltd v Visie Three Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2024] QSC 244, 18 October 2024, Williams J
Brent Reading appeared for the respondent in this proceeding, who applied for an order that its costs of the proceeding be paid on the indemnity basis. The respondent was successful. Justice Williams’ judgment considers the factors relevant to the making of an indemnity costs order.
Link - https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QSC/2024/244.html