Litigation & Dispute Resolution

Commercial Litigation Lawyers Sydney

Commercial Litigation Lawyer Sydney

Litigation constitutes an undesirable risk to most businesses. It can be disruptive and costly in monetary terms and to your time.  By engaging a good commercial lawyer early and keeping your contracts etc in order, disputes can frequently be avoided.

Our commercial disputes lawyers / commercial litigation lawyers in Sydney are able to pre-empt and extinguish the threat of litigation before the risk arises through strategic legal advice.

Where litigation is a realistic possibility, we are able to effectively negotiate with the other party where appropriate in order to secure your position in terms of costs if it is necessary for the matter to proceed to trial, and potentially avoid the need for the time and expense of litigation by achieving an early commercial settlement.

If however litigation has become unavoidable, our Sydney business lawyers and disputes lawyers can react effectively and vigorously and have a broad domestic and international knowledge base to deal with the various issues which may arise. We act in all Australian Courts and Tribunals in relation to all types of business litigation as well personal disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Dispute Resolution Lawyers

We specialise in commercial and corporate litigation, and we have a proven track record of successfully representing our clients in various legal matters.

As a business owner, you understand the importance of protecting your interests and resolving disputes quickly and efficiently. That’s where we come in. Our attorneys have the expertise and knowledge to navigate complex legal issues and help you achieve the best possible outcome for your business.

We offer a wide range of commercial and corporate litigation services, including but not limited to:

  • Business Dispute Resolution
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Corporate Litigation
  • Contract Disputes
  • Partnership Disputes
  • Shareholder Disputes
  • Intellectual Property Disputes
  • Debt Recovery

 

Litigation lawyers

We understand that every case is unique, and that’s why we take a personalized approach to each matter we handle. Our attorneys work closely with you to understand your needs and goals, and we provide tailored solutions to meet your specific requirements.

At our law firm, we pride ourselves on delivering exceptional results for our clients. We have a team of highly skilled litigation lawyers who have extensive experience in representing businesses of all sizes. Whether you need an attorney for a small dispute or a complex legal matter, we have the expertise to help you.

If you’re looking for a commercial or corporate litigation law firm in Sydney or anywhere in Australia, look no further. Contact us today to schedule a consultation with one of our experienced attorneys. We’re here to help you protect your business and achieve your legal goals.

Related insights

transferred-money-to-wrong-account-what-to-do-featured-photo

Have you accidentally transferred money to the wrong account?

Home Table of Contents What to do if you have mistakenly transferred money 1. Contact your bank immediately ePayments Code[1] administered by ASIC The ePayments Code is a voluntary code of practice that banks and other electronic payments providers subscribe to.  Typically, in the terms and conditions between you and your bank, there will be a clause in which the bank is obliged to comply with the ePayments Code and therefore a contractual right that you can enforce against the bank[2]. Relevantly, amongst other things, the ePayments Code prescribes the rules which determine who pays for unauthorised transactions and the how mistaken internet payments can be recovered. The ePayments Code applies to a wide range of electronic payments provided by banks[3]: (a) electronic card transactions, including ATM, EFTPOS, credit card and debit card transactions that are not intended to be authenticated by comparing a manual signature with a specimen signature, (b) telephone banking and bill payment transactions, (c) pay anyone banking facility transactions, (d) online transactions performed using a card number and expiry date, (e) online bill payments (including BPAY), (f) transactions using facilities with contactless features and prepaid cards, not intended to be authenticated by comparing a manual signature with a specimen signature, (g) direct debits, (h) transactions using electronic toll devices, (i) transactions using mobile devices, (j) transactions using electronic public transport ticketing facilities, (k) mail order transactions not intended to be authenticated by comparing a manual signature with a specimen signature, and (l) any other transaction specified by ASIC under clause 44 as a transaction to which the ePayments Code applies. There are exceptions and modifications which apply to low value facilities, small businesses, and BPAY payments. Three categories of payments Banks can deposit money into the wrong account for various different reasons and it is important to distinguish between the different categories of mistaken bank transfers. In all cases it is important that you contact your bank immediately. Mistaken internet payments This page is primarily concerned with mistaken internet payments i.e. funds transmitted using a pay anyone banking facility that are sent to an unintended recipient. There are various important obligations upon banks which relate to disclosure of terms and conditions (clause 26), on screen warnings (clause 27), reporting (clause 28), and investigation (clause 29). The applicable process depends on whether or not there are sufficient funds in the recipient’s bank account to repay you, and how quickly you make your report to the bank: Process where sufficient funds are available and report is made within 10 business days[4] In short, if a report is made within 10 business days of making the mistaken internet payment, and there are sufficient funds available in the recipient’s account to repay the mistaken payment, then the recipient’s bank must return the funds to your bank within 5 – 10 business days of receiving a request from your bank. If your bank is not satisfied that a mistaken internet payment has occurred, then it can still seek the consent of the unintended recipient to return the funds. Process where sufficient funds are available and report is made between 10 business days and 7 months[5] The process is less easy if more time has passed.  In short, if a report is made between 10 business days and 7 months after making the mistaken internet payment, and there are sufficient funds available in the recipient’s account to repay the mistaken payment, the receiving bank must: –    complete its investigation into the reported mistaken payment within 10 business days of receiving a request. –    Prevent the unintended recipient from withdrawing the funds for 10 further business days –    Notify the unintended recipient that it will withdraw the funds from their account, if the unintended recipient does not establish that they are entitled to the funds within 10 business days commencing on the day the unintended recipient was prevented from withdrawing the funds If the unintended recipient does not establish that they are entitled to the funds within 10 business days then the recipient’s bank must return the funds to your bank within 2 business days thereafter. Process where sufficient funds are available and report is made after 7 months[6] The process if a report is made after 7 months basically relies upon the consent of the unintended recipient. Process where sufficient funds are not available[7] If both your bank and the recipient’s bank are satisfied that there has been a mistaken internet payment, the recipient’s bank must exercise discretion[8], based on an appropriate weighing of interests of both the sending consumer and unintended recipient and information reasonably available to it about the circumstances of the mistake and the unintended recipient, in deciding whether it should: (a) pursue the return of funds to the total value of the mistaken internet payment, (b) pursue the return of funds representing only a partial amount of the total value of the mistaken internet payment, or (c) not pursue any return of funds (whether partial or total). The recipient’s bank has a discretion to for example seek the repayment of funds by instalments under clause 34.4 and clause 34.6 guides on the exercise of that discretion. Internal complaints There are requirements on banks at clauses 35 and 36 to inform bank account holders of the outcome of their reported mistaken internet payment and their right to complain to the bank internally. If the bank account holder is not satisfied about the outcome of a complaint, they can complaint to AFCA about the bank (covered below). between the different categories of mistaken bank transfers. In all cases it is important that you contact your bank immediately. Unauthorised transactions Unauthorised transactions are treated differently. An unauthorised transaction means a transaction that is not authorised by a user. It does not include any transaction that is performed by a user themselves or by anyone who performs a transaction with the knowledge and consent of a user.[9] Clause 10 of the ePayments Code stipulates various circumstances when a

Read More »
Shareholder-dispute-lawyers-sydney-valuation-of-minority-interests-in-shareholder-oppression-claims-feartured-photo

Valuation of Minority Interests in Shareholder Oppression Claims

Home In Australia, shareholders who feel oppressed or unfairly treated by the company or its directors can seek remedies under various statutory provisions. Here are some of the remedies available to shareholders: Oppression proceedings under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth): Under section 232 of the Corporations Act, shareholders can apply to the court for relief if they believe that the company’s affairs are being conducted in a manner that is oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, or discriminatory to them. The court has broad powers to make orders to remedy the situation, including ordering the company to buy back the shareholder’s shares, ordering the company to pay compensation, or ordering the company to amend its constitution or replace its directors. Derivative actions under the Corporations Act: Shareholders can bring derivative actions under section 236 of the Corporations Act if they believe that the directors have breached their duties to the company. In such actions, the shareholder sues on behalf of the company to recover damages from the directors for any losses suffered by the company as a result of their breaches. Personal actions against directors under the Corporations Act: Shareholders can also bring personal actions against directors under section 180 of the Corporations Act if the director has breached their duty of care and diligence. This may occur if a director has made a decision that causes harm to the company, such as approving a risky investment without proper research or due diligence. Compulsory acquisition of shares under the Corporations Act: In some cases, shareholders may be able to force the company to buy their shares under section 461 of the Corporations Act. This may occur if the shareholder can show that they have been unfairly treated, and that it would be just and equitable for the company to buy their shares. The amount that is awarded will depend on the particular facts of the case.  In BAM Property Group Pty Ltd as trustee for BAM Property Trust v Imoda Group Holdings Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 1192, the Federal Court of Australia provided guidance on the principles that should be applied in valuing company shares in shareholder oppression claims. The following are some of the key principles: Compensation for oppression: The purpose of granting a remedy between parties in an oppression case is to “to compensate the oppressed shareholder for the oppression which has taken place”. Wide discretion: In cases where the relief to be granted is the compulsory purchase of shares, that object is achieved by the Court having a wide discretion to fix a price that “represents a fair value in all the circumstances”. That does not necessitate fixing a price only by reference to ordinary valuation principles. The question is to identify the price which should be paid in the circumstances. No benefit to oppressor for oppression: Where shares are to be valued as a starting point for determining the price which should be paid, the usual date for valuation is the date of the filing of the proceedings, but that is by no means a universal approach. The valuation does not value the shares at that date as if nothing but the ordinary course of business had preceded it. That would effectively allow the oppressing party the benefit of the wrongful conduct as, inevitably, that conduct has diminished the value of the oppressed party’s interest in the company before the proceedings are commenced. In Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society v Meyer [1959] AC 324 , Lord Keith identified (at 364) that the valuation process must negate the effects of the oppressive conduct. His Lordship said the amount to be determined was: … what would have been the value of the shares at the commencement of the proceedings had it not been for the effect of the oppressive conduct of which complaint was made. This is clearly not a matter on which a calculation can be made with mathematical accuracy or by the application of strict accounting principles … Fair price to put applicant into position as if no oppression: A fair price would be the value which the shares would have had at the date of the petition, if there had been no oppression. In relation to the claim for oppression, when the court is valuing the oppressed shareholder’s interest in the determination of the relief to be awarded for oppression, the aim is to put the applicant in the position as if there had been no oppression. There are different methods of valuation that might be deployed, and there is no one size fits all answer.  Quite often, the outgoing shareholder will have been excluded from management, leaving the remaining shareholders / directors “in control”.  It is clear however from the authorities that the oppressors will not be entitled to benefit from the relevant oppression. Our corporate lawyers in Sydney specialise in dispute resolution relating to shareholder disputes and directors duties.  Be prepared to have to issue proceedings before the other parties properly come to the negotiating table.

Read More »
heathfield-grosvenor-recognised-under-best-law-firms-in-sydney-2021-by-firmchecker

FirmChecker 2021 ‘Best Law Firms in Sydney 2021’ Award Winners

Heathfield Grosvenor Lawyers has been recognised as ‘a highly rated firm’ by FirmChecker (don’t know what that is? It is equivalent to Tripadvisor in the tourism industry), Australia’s leading site for professional service reviews. Do we work for the accolades and the recognition? Absolutely not. Thankfully, these recognitions come with the ardent work that we pride ourselves in. But, as a law firm, we are always thankful for the recognition given, and most importantly, knowing that our clients receive the best and just outcome. Survey results, as published by Lawyers Weekly show that ‘NZ lawyers are more trustworthy than Australian Lawyers’ – now that is another point to add onto Australia’s long-standing scoreboard with New Zealand! But, the point being is that we aim to restore the integrity and trust between clients and lawyers through our firm. For us, it is not about competition because we distinguish ourselves with our inherent ability to achieve just outcomes, and a pleasant and professional experience for our clients. Serving justice is a privilege and a duty for us, and nothing else. Just leave it with us. See the full FirmChecker article below: https://www.firmchecker.com.au/news/best-rated-law-firms-in-sydney-cbd Lawyers Weekly Article: https://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/biglaw/25220-nz-lawyers-more-trustworthy-than-australian-research-shows

Read More »
unfair-contract-terms featured photo

Unfair Contract Term Protections for Small Businesses

BACKGROUND Following public consultation processes, new laws[1] came into force on 12 November 2016 which extended existing consumer protection laws against unfair contract terms to “small business contracts” (e.g. business to business contracts). Under these laws, small businesses can also have an “unfair” term in a “standard form contract” declared as void in specified circumstances. In doing so they would not have to comply with the term. Findings identified in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Small Business and Unfair Contract Terms) Bill 2015 suggest that, like consumers, small businesses are vulnerable to the inclusion of unfair terms in standard form contracts as they often lack: the resources to identify unfair terms, appreciate their significance and determine whether they can manage the associated risks; the resources to engage in negotiations over the terms of a contract; the bargaining power to successfully negotiate the terms of a contract; and/or the resources and bargaining power to resist the enforcement of unfair contract terms. The stated objective of this reform[2] is to promote fairness in contractual dealings with small businesses with regard to standard form contracts. This will reduce small business detriment and have positive impacts on the broader economy by increasing small business certainty and confidence, and providing for a more efficient allocation of risk. WHEN DOES PROTECTION TO CONSUMERS / SMALL BUSINESSES APPLY The unfair contract terms protection provisions are contained in ss23 – 28 of Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (Australian Consumer Law). Section 23 provides that a term of a “consumer contract” and “small business contract” is void if the term is “unfair” and the contract is a “standard form contract”. We do not examine consumer contracts which were protected prior to the amendments but examine the concepts of “small business contracts”, “standard form contracts” and when terms will be considered to be “unfair”. Small business contract In summary, in order for the contract to be a small business contract, each of the following must apply: The contract must be for the supply of goods or services or a sale or grant of an interest in land; At least one of the parties to the contract is a business that employs less than 20 people[3]; and The upfront price[4] payable under the contract is $300,000 or less, or the contract is for a duration of more than 12 months and the upfront price is $1,000,000 or less. Standard form contracts Standard form contracts are everywhere for example IT services contracts, advertising services contracts, mobile phone contracts, licences of office space, gym memberships etc. They are an efficient and effective way for businesses to contract. The Court will take into account any facts that it considers to be relevant however at the time of writing it “must” take into account the following in determining whether a contract is a standard form contract: whether one of the parties has all or most of the bargaining power relating to the transaction; whether the contract was prepared by one party before any discussion relating to the transaction occurred between the parties; whether another party was, in effect, required either to accept or reject the terms of the contract (other than certain excluded terms discussed below)in the form in which they were presented; whether another party was given an effective opportunity to negotiate the terms (other than certain excluded terms discussed below); and whether the terms of the contract (other than certain excluded terms discussed below) take into account the specific characteristics of another party or the particular transaction. Excluded terms: the protection does not extend to terms to the extent that they define the main subject matter of the contract, set the upfront price payable under the contract, or are terms required by law. Excluded contracts: the protection does not extend to contracts which are individually negotiated, or to certain types of contracts such as contracts of marine salvage or towage, a charterparty of a ship, and contracts for the carriage of goods by ship, constitutions of companies or managed investment schemes or other kinds of bodies. After 12 November 2016: The contract needs to have been entered into, renewed or rolled over after 12 November 2016. The law also applies to amendments to contracts after 12 November 2016 but not to the terms which have not been amended. Unfair terms There is a three limb test to unfairness. A term will be “unfair” if: it would cause a significant imbalance to the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract; it is not reasonably necessary in order to protect the legitimate interests of the party who would be advantaged by them; and it would cause detriment to a party if it were to be applied or relied on. The Court “must” take into account the extent to which the term was transparent[5] and the contract as a whole. Make sure your print is not too fine! Some prescribed examples of the types of terms which may be unfair are as follows: a term that permits, or has the effect of permitting, one party (but not another party) to avoid or limit performance of the contract; a term that permits, or has the effect of permitting, one party (but not another party) to terminate the contract; a term that penalises, or has the effect of penalising, one party (but not another party) for a breach or termination of the contract; a term that permits, or has the effect of permitting, one party (but not another party) to vary the terms of the contract; a term that permits, or has the effect of permitting, one party (but not another party) to renew or not renew the contract; a term that permits, or has the effect of permitting, one party to vary the upfront price payable under the contract without the right of another party to terminate the contract; a term that permits, or has the effect of permitting, one party unilaterally to vary the characteristics of

Read More »

Some of our litigation services

Building Construction

Consumer Protection

Defamation

Contract Disputes

lawyer copyright

Shareholder Disputes

Family Law

Copyright Infringement

Debt Recovery

Litigation Funding

Shipping / Admiralty Claims

small business lawyers sydney

Contact
Heathfield Grosvenor Lawyers Pty Ltd