Like it or not, every business will have disputes. Cost effective resolution is the key. Our focus is on understanding your predicament and providing the strategy, whether for litigation or alternative dispute resolution, to help you achieve your business goals. We have played a role in resolving many of Australia's largest commercial disputes.
Fully transferable expertise
Our expertise has developed through acting for clients from virtually every area of commerce and industry - manufacturing, banking and finance, commercial property, construction and engineering, health, infrastructure and utilities, petroleum, telecommunications, tourism, transport and distribution.
Our approach
In every instance, we:
identify the legal issues and commercial drivers behind the dispute
align the dispute resolution strategy with the demands of your business
agree the right individual or team to deliver the required outcome
create open lines of communication with key stakeholders
ensure progress is within your preferred timeframes
critically review progress with you until the dispute is resolved
conduct a debrief to identify key lessons learnt.
If you can't prevent - pre-empt
Pre-empting litigation is a wise strategy and putting measures in place to minimise disputes in the first place is even wiser. We can conduct rigorous audits to identify potential pressure points and advise on effective measures to address them.
Not only in Australia
We have a highly mobile network of dispute resolution lawyers. This means we can have a 'rapid response team' on site almost anywhere in the region. This is more economical and effective than would be possible if the matter had to be sent to main regional centres in Australia, Singapore or Hong Kong. Our established presence in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam and China, gives us the edge when it comes to setting up an on-site team.
An Australian court has, for the first time, made an award of damages to compensate a plaintiff for “mere distress” which had resulted from a breach of confidence. On the authority of this decision, it is no longer necessary to prove an actual psychiatric injury in order to obtain damages where a duty of confidence has been breached.
A recent unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal (Interstar Wholesale Finance Pty Limited v Integral Home Loans Pty Limited [2008] NSWCA 310), in which Deacons acted for the successful appellant, has given some guidance on the law of penalties.
In difficult economic times hard decisions – like to dissolve a joint venture – may have to be made. But those decisions need not be rushed or unprincipled. And good money can be thrown away if the right course is not adopted, as a recent Federal Court case demonstrates.
Welcome to our bumper September edition of D-brief. In this edition, we consider some recent significant government announcements relating to climate change, intellectual property, the Legal Services Directions 2005 and freedom of information.
The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations released the Australian GOvernment Employment Bargaining Framework (the Framework) on 29 February 2008. The Framework provides for the negotiation of new collective agreements and has been designed in part to deliver commitments made by the Rudd Government in relation to industrial relations.
The High Court has granted special leave to the franchisor to appeal the decision of the NSW Court of Appeal in Ketchell v Master Education Services Pty Ltd. Readers will recall that the Court of Appeal last July found that a franchise agreement made in breach of regulation 11(1) of the Franchising Code of Conduct was unlawful and unenforceable.
After the first edition of D-brief we received very positive feedback on the publication and the quality of the articles. It is our intention to maintain this high standard and your input will ensure that the content always remains relevant.
The High Court has upheld the validity of section 657A(2)(b) (as it was then) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act) by allowing the Commonwealth’s appeal against the Full Federal Court decision in Australian Pipeline Limited v Alinta Limited (APL decision).
3 October 2007, the High Court dismissed an appeal from Westfield Management Limited (Westfield) in which Westfield had argued that as the owner of land which had the benefit of an easement, it was entitled to use this easement not only for the purpose of accessing the property but in order to access two adjoining properties.