Aitken Whyte Lawyers provide debt recovery and corporate insolvency advice to:
We tailor our solutions to suit each client’s unique circumstances. Each approach we develop is focused on results.
Initially, we will:
When facing uncertainty, we can advise on debt recovery, defence, and corporate insolvency. Our experience includes acting for and advising individuals, small businesses, and large corporations.
We understand any action you take needs to be commercial. Our solicitors are business-minded and know the approach taken needs to benefit you. Our focus on obtaining the best outcome means:
Speak to a skilled litigator to know you’re taking the right steps for success when you need to:
Insolvency law is complex and the Courts take into consideration the realities of business. Our solicitors practice in insolvency, litigation, and commercial law, so understand these intricacies. We can guide you through the Court process to help you achieve the result you need.
Creditors – We can take swift action against a debtor company to minimise the time before they pay your debts. If a company owes you or your business money, effective recovery methods are available. Contact us to discuss the most efficient way to have a debt repaid.
Debtors – There are strict time frames within which to respond to a creditor’s statutory demand. Failing to comply can devastate your company. You need to take immediate action if a creditor has served you with such a demand. Contact us if you dispute the debt (or part of the debt) or have a cross-claim. We can assist you to prepare a response to meet all relevant deadlines.
Directors, Shareholders, and Company Members – Sometimes, in the running of a company, disputes arise about conduct and management. We can offer advice to directors and shareholders to:
Call us to speak to a lawyer about a tailored plan to recover your money.
We will review all relevant documentation you provide to give you advice on your options.
Generally, the first step will be to attempt to reach a fast, cost-effective resolution. We can contact the debtor to determine their position and openness to negotiate. We will also establish your position with them in an attempt to reach an agreement in your favour.
We will always act in your best interests. In the event the parties are unable to agree, we will provide guidance on the immediate steps you can take.
Our lawyers will aggressively litigate the matter if necessary. We will progress any action with the intent to recover all money owed to you.
Aitken Whyte Lawyers offer a wide range of corporate insolvency services. We can expertly:
Contact a law firm focused on results to handle your insolvency matter.
You can speak directly to a lawyer by:
We’re happy to discuss your situation and the ways we may be able to assist.
If an individual owes you money they are unwilling to pay, there are steps we can assist you to take to recover this.
As a starting point, you may wish to set out your expectations with a letter of demand. A letter of demand should be straightforward and can be relatively simple. Its purpose is to set out in certain terms the amount owed, what it is for, and by when and where you require it to be paid. You can use this example of a letter of demand to send to your debtors.
If this does not result in the debt being paid, or you do not believe it will, you can engage us to send a letter on your behalf. A letter from a lawyer can show you are serious about taking the necessary action to recover the debt. It can be a cost-effective initial step to persuade a debtor it is in their best interest to pay you.
If a suitable response is not received, we can then bring Court proceedings against them.
Following a judgement in your favour, you may wish to start bankruptcy proceedings. Bankruptcy proceeds may either:
We can guide you through the entire process, including:
Our knowledge of this area also means we can defend you with expertise if someone:
If an individual owes you money, we can assist you to obtain a Court order in your favour and then enforce that order. One option which may be available to you is to apply to bankrupt the debtor.
Our legal services include:
We can also assist in setting aside a bankruptcy notice.
We will discuss the benefits of bankruptcy proceedings against other enforcement options available. The most effective option will depend on factors such as what assets the debtor holds.
Call us on 07 3229 4459 or send us an email.
We will transfer you directly to a lawyer, or organise a convenient time for a lawyer to contact you.
We offer practical advice to resolve your legal matter as efficiently as possible.
Pioneer Credit Solutions Pty Ltd v Hyett [2021] QDC 11
T&L Byrne Excavations Pty Ltd & Anor v Robinson – QSC21-279
Ocean Pacific Group Pty Ltd v Jade Northcliffe Pty Ltd & Sarkis [2023] QSC 108
CIVIL DEBT CLAIM – NON-PUBLICATION ORDER – OPEN JUSTICE PRINCIPLE – PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY – EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES TEST
We successfully acted for the plaintiff in this District Court proceeding, where the defendant’s application for a non-publication order relating to evidence and outcome in a civil trial concerning a $240,000 debt claim was denied.
The defendant argued that publication could prejudice his right to a fair trial in a separate criminal proceedings, however, the court found no connection between the matters and determined that any potential media coverage was unlikely to impact a criminal jury trial scheduled for mid-2024.
Emphasizing the principle of open justice, the court concluded that exceptional circumstances warranting a non-publication order were not present.
Lee v Di Carlo (No 2) [2023] QDC 212
ELECTION REQUIREMENT IN NO CASE SUBMISSIONS – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – DISCRETION – PLEADINGS
In this District Court proceeding where we successfully acted for the plaintiff, the defendant was required to elect whether to call evidence before proceeding with a “no case to answer” submission.
The plaintiff claimed $240,000 as a loan to the defendant, which was contested by the defendant as being funds pooled for lending to third parties.
The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s evidence-in-chief did not support the pleaded case. The court found that assessing the no-case submission required detailed examination of the plaintiff’s evidence, making it inappropriate to allow the defendant to proceed without an election, as this would give the defendant an unfair advantage.
The court upheld the general rule that a part must make an election in such cases to ensure procedural fairness.
Gustin v Shalev (No 2) [2020] QDC 2
CIVIL PROCEDURE – APPEAL – SUMMARY JUDGEMENT – APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE JUDGEMENT – DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM
In this District Court proceeding we successfully acted for the appellant who appealed against a Magistrates Court decision that had granted summary judgement in favour of the respondent.
The District Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Magistrate’s Court’s judgements. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant’s costs for the appeal.
The case addressed issues around the sufficiency of the appellants defense, initially hindered by self-representation, and whether the appellant should be ordered to provide security as a condition of defending the proceedings, which was ultimately rejected.
Gustin v Shalev [2019] QDC 254
APPEAL – SUMMARY JUDGEMENT – DEFENCE ON THE MERITS – MISLEADING OR DECEPTIVE CONDUCT – UCPR – ACL
In this District Court appeal, we successfully represented the appellant relating to a decision from the Magistrate’s Court that had dismissed his application to set aside a summary judgement entered in favour of the respondent.
The summary judgement had been made against the appellant in his absence, as he failed to attend court at the hearing despite filing a notice of intention to defend. We argued for the appellant that he had a valid defense based on alleged misleading conduct by the respondent, which induced him to enter into a loan agreement.
Judge Reid DCJ ultimately decided that there was an arguable case on the merits, and thus, the summary judgement should be set aside, with further proceedings to be transferred to the Magistrate’s Court for determination.
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – QUESTIONS OF FACT AND LAW – QCAT
We successfully represented the respondent in the Supreme Court proceeding, where the court dismissed the applicant’s request for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal, as well as the application for leave to appeal itself.
The applicant, Mr. Robb, sought to challenge a decision by the Queensland civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) that dismissed his claim for a sum of money which he alleged to have lent to the respondent.
The court held that the proposed appeal was based on findings of fact, not just questions of law, and therefore did not meet the statutory criteria for an appeal. As a result, the applications were dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs.
Thomas & Anor v Kendon & Ors [2012] QDC 95
Horne v Gilshenan & Luton [2010] QDC 491
Kernohan Construction Pty Ltd v Gillham [2019] QCAT 165
Brisbane
Aitken Whyte Lawyers Brisbane
2/414 Upper Roma Street
Brisbane QLD 4000
