Corporate & Commercial

Contracts, structures and governance for businesses that need the paperwork to hold when something goes wrong.

Mergers & Acquisitions

Buying or selling a business, from the term sheet and due diligence through to completion and the restraints that follow.

Litigation & Dispute Resolution

Commercial disputes in the NSW, ACT and Federal courts, resolved early where that is possible and run properly where it is not.

Government and Defence

Supplying government and the defence industry.

Technology and Software

Your product scales digitally. Your contracts have to scale with it.

Financial Services

A regulated business, on solid legal footing.

Legal Administration Assistant, Canberra

Canberra office, full time, on site.

Wahlstation for German Referendare

Sydney or Canberra, open all year.

The track record

Judgments and tribunal outcomes, transactions completed, appointments taken, and the conversations we are part of in Australia and in Germany.

Germany

A German desk for businesses moving between Australia and the German-speaking market.

Singapore

Singapore law where it governs the contract, and the arbitral seat that carries much of the region’s work.

Vietnam

Market entry, supply arrangements and dispute resolution for Vietnam.

COURT AND TRIBUNAL

Gindy v Capital Lawyers: claim against solicitors fails at trial

17 November 2021
A former client sued a firm of solicitors and two of its principals in the Supreme Court of the ACT, in a proceeding commenced in 2015. It was tried over 88 hearing days spread across two years.
Judgment was entered for the defendants: Gindy v Capital Lawyers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 304. An application made during the trial, that the judge recuse herself, had been refused for want of any evidence of actual or apprehended bias: Gindy v Capital Lawyers Pty Ltd (No 1) [2021] ACTSC 303.
The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against the liability judgment in December 2022, by majority, and remitted the matter: Gindy v Capital Lawyers Pty Ltd [2022] ACTCA 66; 374 FLR 1. The ground was apprehended bias on the part of the trial judge, drawn from her treatment of the lay adviser who appeared with the appellant. One member of the Court took a different view of apprehended bias and would have dismissed the appeal on the grounds he considered.
The distinction is the Court of Appeal’s own, and it matters. What was set aside was the trial, not any finding that the defence was wrong. Having ordered a rehearing, the Court expressly did not need to reach the grounds of appeal that went to the merits. There was no retrial.
Read the judgment: AustLII

Sydney

Canberra

Frankfurt a.M.