archive-au.com » AU » A » AWBRISBANELAWYERS.COM.AU

Total: 61

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Law Firms Brisbane City, Lawyers in Brisbane CBD
    Our Team Lawyers Solicitors Robert Aitken Alicia Dark Ambyr Cousen Rebecca Forsyth Contact Courts Resources 07 3229 4459 Call 07 3229 4459 Services Brisbane Lawyers and Solicitors Services Services Aitken Whyte Lawyers Brisbane Lawyers And Solicitors for Brisbane Queensland Services Business Agency Business Commercial Debt Recovery Bankruptcy Insolvency Employment Law Insurance Leases Commercial Retail Litigation Disputes Professional Negligence Personal Buying Selling Property Crime Criminal Law Debt Recovery DUI Drink Driving Traffic Licences Employment Law Insurance Litigation Disputes Professional Negligence Wills Probate Wills Contesting Wills Call Aitken Whyte Lawyers for solutions and results for expert and experienced advice to represent you at this important time or if you want to learn more about our services in Queensland For Brisbane and surrounding areas including Ipswich Redlands Logan Redcliffe and Caboulture call 07 3229 4459 or email us Office Location and Contact Details Brisbane Aitken Whyte Lawyers Level 2 303 Adelaide Street Brisbane Ph 617 3229 4459 Fax 617 3211 9311 E enquiries awbrisbanelawyers com au Contact 07 3229 4459 Email Legal Law Articles Law Courts Follow Us Aitken Whyte Lawyers Home Profile Services Law Articles Team Contact Client Feedback Employment Courts Resources Site Map Contact BRISBANE OFFICE Level 2 303 Adelaide Street

    Original URL path: http://www.awbrisbanelawyers.com.au/brisbane-lawyers-services.html (2015-11-26)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Aitken Whyte Lawyers Brisbane - Client Feedback
    happy with the legal services we provided you Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Was the outcome of your matter consistent with what we told you to expect Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Do you believe you received value for money Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Would you use the services or our lawyers or solicitors again Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Would you recommend us or refer us to someone you knew who needed a lawyer Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree If you have any other comments we would like to hear from you Name Thank you for your time without this we won t know how to make any improvements Do you have a Will or Power of Attorney Aitken Whyte Lawyers provide a full service for drafting Wills and Powers of Attorney estate administration and contesting wills services For all our previous clients we provide a discount on our professional fees for drafting your Will and Enduring Power of Attorney To discuss drafting your Will to ensure your final wishes are carried out and to minimise a dispute arising in relation to your estate call Aitken Whyte Lawyers

    Original URL path: http://www.awbrisbanelawyers.com.au/feedback.html (2015-11-26)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Brisbane Law Firms - Employment Opportunities
    our commitment to diversity in perspectives experiences and backgrounds Diversity allows us to be innovative and effective in the delivery of our services and to meet the changing needs of our clients that is our goal and focus We recognise that the firm is only equal to the strengths of its people If you think you have the right blend of experience and skills and can contribute fresh ideas in

    Original URL path: http://www.awbrisbanelawyers.com.au/employment-law-firm-brisbane.html (2015-11-26)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Brisbane Lawyers, Brisbane Solicitors, Site Map
    Damages to be Claimed Following Breach of Contract Lease Powers of the Lessor Under s 107 Property Law Act 1974 Qld to Enter Premises Ratchet Clauses and Compensation Litigation and Disputes Appealing a QCAT Decision Bank guarantees and injunctions Calderbank Offers Contracts When is a Contract Binding Masters V Cameron Enforcing Money Orders from QCAT Extension of Limitation Period Federal Court Requirements on Dispute Resolution Interim injunctions and interlocutory injunctions Misleading and Deceptive Conduct in Property Transactions and Sales of Real Estate Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Under the Australian Consumer Law Proceedings Dismissed for Delay Proportionate Liability Limiting the Scope of Wrongdoers Accountability Removal of Trustee Rights of Apartment Owners for Economic Loss from Latent Building Defects Setting Aside Default Judgments Unconscionable Conduct Under the Australian Consumer Law and Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio When a Guarantee Must be Evidenced in Writing Professional Negligence Accountancy and Financial Advice Professional Negligence Accountants Held Liable for Breach of Duty to Previous Shareholders of Company Barristers Immune to Professional Negligence Actions by Solicitors Builder Liable for Negligence to Subsequent Owners of Home for Pure Economic Loss Claim Against Lawyers for Expired Limitation Period Disclosure of Legal Professional Privilege In Professional Negligence Claim Against Lawyers Engineers and Builders No Liability in Professional Negligence to Subsequent Owners of Commercial Buildings for Structural Defects Informal Wills Solicitor s negligence in advising on will and the Succession Act Insurance Broker Liable for Failing to Ensure Full Coverage and Warn Client of Lack of Insurance Insurance Broker Liable in Excess of 2 Million for Professional Negligence Insurance Broker s Professional Negligence Liable to Client for Insurance Company s Refusal to Pay Claim Lawyers Sued for Failing to Warn of Possibility of Nil Recovery Overpaid Tax Damages for Loss of Use of Money in Professional Negligence Claim v

    Original URL path: http://www.awbrisbanelawyers.com.au/site-map-lawyers-brisbane-solicitors.html (2015-11-26)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Suing Lawyers, Barristers, Solicitors for Work Performed in Court, Advocate's Immunity
    by the Respondent The Court ruled that advocates immunity applied to the claim regardless of how the Appellant framed the action and dismissed the Appellant s claim on this basis The Appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia In an appeal the Appellant argued that his original claim in the Federal Court relied on the finding that the Respondent had mislead him as to the belief she was competent to act in his claim and that she failed to advise him on a number of necessary things Secondly the Appellant argued the primary judge erred in dismissing his claim on the basis of advocate s immunity as not all of his claims fell within the immunity Alternatively he put forth that the existing state of authorities was not clear enough to justify the use of the immunity The Decision The Full Court of the Federal Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the primary judge The Respondent accepted the Appellant s claim that the primary judge wrongly dismissed the original claim thus the Court did not address this point in detail However they did mention that it was clear the Federal Court erred in striking out the claim at first instance on the basis that the statement of claim whilst poorly expressed extended further than the statement of claim at first instance The focus of the appeal was in regards to the second point the primary judge s dismissal of the claim on the basis of advocate s immunity The Court looked at the leading High Court cases in this area namely Giannarelli and D Orta Ekenaike In regards to Giannarelli the Court looked at the case in detail and highlighted an advocate is not able to be sued in negligence for work which is so intimately connected to the conduct in court that it cannot be distinguished The court noted that the case did not give clarity as to where this line should be drawn however they emphasised that the immunity should not be relaxed so as to allow clients to blame advocates for all losses in court The court then looked at the decision of D Orta Ekenaike which considered work done by an advocate outside of court that affected the conduct of the case at the trial This was considered to fall within the advocate s immunity however the decision did not further clarify where the line is to be drawn Their Honours in the Full Court of the Federal Court emphasised the court s reference in D Orta Ekenaike to the importance of the finality of decisions noting this as the primary justification for advocate s immunity In conclusion the court highlighted the position in Giannarelli is to remain That is work which is done in or out of court which leads to the court s decision is to be considered an advocate s work for the purpose of the immunity In application to the appeal on foot the

    Original URL path: http://www.awbrisbanelawyers.com.au/suing-lawyers-barristers-solicitors-for-work-performed-in-court-advocates-immunity.html (2015-11-26)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Interim Injunctions, Interlocutory Injunctions
    of convenience as to the damage which would be suffered the applicant would suffer more damage if the injunction were not granted than the defendant would if the injunction was granted The first element involves an analysis of the likelihood of the applicant s case being successful however does not involve or result in a prediction of the outcome of the subsequent case The courts have identified a number of further considerations when granting Interlocutory Injunctions These involve a consideration of whether the injunction sought is prohibitory or mandatory the latter are in nature more onerous and difficult to enforce thus they are rarely granted as it requires the party to do something rather than just prohibit the doing of an act any effect the injunction will have upon third parties the court will be far less likely to grant an injunction where it will interfere with the rights of third parties or have a negative effect on the public interest the length of time between the application and the pending trial this can be either beneficial or detrimental to an application for an injunction depending on how onerous the requirements in the injunction are any delay on behalf of the party seeking the injunction delay will be largely detrimental to an application for an injunction as it may cause doubt as to the urgency and necessity of obtaining the injunction and the strength of the applicants case Additionally it will be highly favourable to the applicant to provide an undertaking as to damages and generally this is required as part of any order a court will make While this is not a requirement of an application for an Interim or Interlocutory Injunction it is generally noted that it is a highly persuasive factor in the court s discretion The undertaking is to be given to the court and must be for an amount sufficient to compensate the respondent for any losses stemming from the imposition of the injunction should it ultimately be determined the injunction was wrongly granted Breach of an Interim Injunction A party who breaches an Interim Injunction may be held to be in contempt of court which may result in imprisonment or fines Due to the severity of this it is crucial all procedural aspects of obtaining an Interim Injunction are adhered to strictly Ex parte Interim Injunctions Due to the onerous nature of Interlocutory Injunctions and the serious consequences of their breach an applicant is generally required to give notice to the other side in order to ensure a fair trial However in certain situations the court is able to grant an Interim Injunction without notice to the other party or an ex parte Interim Injunction Orders of this nature will generally be granted only for a few days or until the parties are able to attend a hearing and present their arguments for and against the award of an Interlocutory Injunction which will remain in place absent any appeals until the trial In exercising

    Original URL path: http://www.awbrisbanelawyers.com.au/what-is-interim-injunction-interlocutory-injunctions-court-litigation-lawyers-brisbane.html (2015-11-26)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Solicitors Owe A Duty Of Care To Beneficiaries When Drafting Wills, Professional Negligence
    denied any breach if a duty was found and argued that no loss was suffered by the appellant The Judge in the case at first instance found that a testator s solicitor could owe a duty of care to a beneficiary However his Honour went on to qualify this by expressing that the scope of this duty is dependent upon the client s retainer In analysing the scope of Mr Doddridge s retainer in the present case the Judge noted that the case of Hill v Hill outlines that a solicitor does owe an intended beneficiary under a will a duty to take reasonable care to give effect to the client s wishes His Honour noted that the situation in the applicant s case was unique and held that while the solicitor had owed a duty of care to the testator to warn of any possible claim under the TFM Act he was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that had this duty been discharged the testator would have taken the relevant action to frustrate any potential claims Therefore on the basis that the applicant could not on the balance of probabilities establish causation of loss the Judge found there was no need to decide whether the solicitor owed the plaintiff a duty to advise the testator as to the risks of any potential claims under the TFM Act or any steps which ought to have been taken to reduce such risks The Appeal In the appeal the appellant the beneficiary submitted that the trial judge erred in his findings as he failed to appropriately consider their assertion of the testator s actions had the Respondents fulfilled their duty and warned the testator of potential claims under the TFM Act In coming to their findings the court noted that in executing Mr Doddridge s prior wills one of which contained a small gift to his daughter the firm had knowledge of the existence of his daughter thus they should have warned him of a potential claim arising under the TFM Act Additionally the court noted that the firm held conveyancing files which identified the testator s properties were held as tenants in common Thus the firm contained the requisite knowledge to identify the ability to alter title of the properties to reflect ownership as joint tenants which would have avoided the claims which subsequently arose and which were adverse to his testamentary wishes The Decision Mr Badenach and the firm of solicitors were found to have breached their duty to the appellant This was found on the basis that a practitioner has a duty to advise their client of possible claims which may arise in respect of their estate The court additionally found that practitioners are under a duty to advise a testator of mechanisms which may be employed in order to ensure his or her testamentary intentions are fulfilled The court did note however that solicitors are under no duty to ensure that such advice is accepted or

    Original URL path: http://www.awbrisbanelawyers.com.au/solicitors-owe-duty-of-care-to-beneficiaries-drafting-wills-professional-negligence-suing-lawyers.html (2015-11-26)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Rights of Apartment Owners for Economic Loss from Latent Building Defects
    judge also noted that to rule in favour of the respondent would result in encroaching into an area which was not provided for by the legislature His honour therefore held for the appellant in the action The Decision on appeal to the NSW Court of Appeal The case subsequently went on appeal in the NSW Court of Appeal in which the decision at first instance was overturned The appellate court rejected the proposition that the contract between the parties comprehensively dealt with the imposition of a duty of care to an extent which left no room for imposition of duties in tort However the court found a narrower duty than was argued by the respondent Ultimately the court found a duty however they limited it to building defects which were structural constituted a danger to persons or property or made the apartments uninhabitable The Decision on appeal to the High Court The principle question raised in the appeal to the High Court was whether Brookfield owed the corporation a duty to exercise reasonable care in constructing the building to avoid causing the corporations suffering pure economic loss from latent defects The High Court overturned the prior decision in the Court of Appeal implementing a case by case approach proscribed by previous judgments in the area The High Court unanimously found that on the facts the appellant did not owe a duty of care to the respondent In coming to this finding the judges examined the contract between the appellant and the developer and identified that the developer was adequately protected as the contract contained numerous stringent clauses which allocated liability for building defects Thus the court stated that to impose any duty of care would improperly modify the careful allocation of risk within the contract In obiter Gageler J noted that it was for the legislature to act in order to protect subsequent purchasers While both New South Wales and Victoria have enacted such legislation at the time of writing Queensland has no statutory safety net in place for apartment owners Thus in Queensland apartment owners are not protected from latent building defects The effect of the decision The decision has extinguished any rights against builders in respect of latent defects to common property for a large number of body corporates in Queensland It has created a model which is likely to ensure that new apartment blocks have contracts similar to those analysed in the case This will ensure that liability is allocated sufficiently as to prevent apartment owners having any rights against builders outside those allocated within the contract As noted Queensland has no legislative protection in place at present thus while applications may be made for rectification orders in the Queensland Building and Construction Commission these are non binding and are able to be appealed to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Thus protection at current for apartment owners and body corporates in Queensland in respect of latent building defects to common areas is limited Call Aitken Whyte

    Original URL path: http://www.awbrisbanelawyers.com.au/economic-loss-latent-building-defects-body-corporate-owners-litigation-lawyers-brisbane-solicitors.html (2015-11-26)
    Open archived version from archive