Our litigation and dispute resolution practice offers a wealth of experience acting for individuals to large private and public companies across all kinds of disputes.
At Chambers Russell Lawyers we understand that litigation is rarely desirable. When a client is embroiled in a dispute that will not resolve by itself we step in and seek to resolve the matter early. Understanding the relevant area of law, briefing the right experts and providing clear and strategic advice is how we provide our clients with value in any litigious or alternative dispute resolution process.
We prosecute and defend litigation in all jurisdictions and provide legal advice and services across all areas of civil dispute.
Our legal services and expertise include:
- Adjudication claims
- Arbitration, conciliation and mediation
- Bankruptcy and insolvency
- Commercial litigation
- Construction disputes
- Debt recovery
- Delay and extension of time claims
- Home warranty insurance / Insurance under the Home Building Compensation Fund
- Insurance claims and disputes
- Professional negligence
- Property damage
- Security of payment claims
- Workers’ compensation
Important Decision on NCAT Jurisdiction for Common Property Claims On 15 January 2020, the Appeal Panel of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“NCAT”) published a joint decision in two cases: The Owners—Strata Plan No 74835 v Pullicin (“Pullicin”); and The Owners—Strata Plan No 80412 v Vickery  NSWCATAP 5 (“Vickery”). Published by on January 16, 2020
Lot owner derivative actions In Tan v The Owners - Strata Plan No 22014 (No 2)  the Supreme Court opened the door to lot owners taking derivative actions on behalf of owners corporations. In this case note we analyse the reasoning of the Court that entitled the lot owner in that case to take such action and be indemnified for their costs in doing so. Published by on June 1, 2016
Beneficiaries of policies issued under the Home Building Compensation Fund In the case of Gardez Nominees Pty Ltd v NSW Self Insurance Corporation  the Supreme Court made determinations as to whether the plaintiff mortgagee in that matter was a beneficiary of a policy of insurance issued under to the Home Building Compensation Fund. The decision potentially has wide ranging implications given the interpretation given to a number of key provisions in the Home Building Act 1989. Published by on June 1, 2016