Quilkey & Anor v Tractile Combined Pty Ltd & Ors [2023] QDC 204 – Judgment after a 6 day trial in the District Court of Queensland. The plaintiffs’ claims included claims for restitution for unlicenced building work, damages for breach of contract, and claims under the Australian Consumer Law against a supplier and a manufacturer. We acted for the successful plaintiffs.
Quilkey & Anor v Tractile Combined Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2023] QDC 223 – Application by defendants during trial to amend its counterclaim. Consideration of case management issues. The plaintiffs successfully opposed the application.
Quilkey & Anor v Tractile Combined Pty Ltd & Ors (No 3) [2023] QDC 224 – Costs orders following a trial. Costs followed the event.
Quilkey & Anor v Tractile Combined Pty Ltd & Ors [2022] QDC 185 – Pleadings skirmish. Applications for strike out, deemed admissions, and for leave to withdraw admissions.
Pioneer Credit Solutions Pty Ltd v Hyett [2021] QDC 11 – Successfully opposed an application for leave to appeal out of time, following dismissal of proceedings for want of prosecution. House v The King, and, Tyler v Custom Credit Corp were each applied.
T&L Byrne Excavations Pty Ltd & Anor v Robinson [2021] QSC 279 – Successful application to the Supreme Court to remove a caveat over the respondent’s property, pursuant to section 127 of the Land Title Act. Reported in the Queensland Law Reporter, the weekly supplement to the Queensland Reports.
Ocean Pacific Group Pty Ltd v Jade Northcliffe Pty Ltd & Anor [2023] QSC 108 – Successful application to set aside a judgment made in the absence of the defendant.
Lee v Di Carlo [2023] QDC 199 – Successfully opposed the defendant’s application for a non-publication order. Consideration of the principle of justice.
Lee v Di Carlo (No 2) [2023] QDC 212 – Successfully opposed the defendant’s application for a ‘no case to answer’ order and compelled the defendant to elect whether or not it he wished to give evidence before the application would be considered in detail.
Lee v Di Carlo (No 3) [2024] QDC 97 – Judgment in favour of our client after a trial in the District Court of Queensland. The claim was for recovery of a loan to the defendant.
JDT v PDL [2022] QDC 88 – Defamation proceedings. Whether allegations in the statement of claim were deemed to be admitted by the defendant, and whether the plaintiff should have leave to deliver interrogatories.
JDT v PDL (No 2) [2022] QDC 147 – Leave to withdraw admissions and apportionment of costs. Our client was awarded 50% of their costs against the plaintiff.
JDT v PDL (No 3) [2023] QDC 5 – Our client successfully applied to disallow certain amendments made to the plaintiff’s statement of claim on the basis of the usual 12 month limitation period to sue for defamation.
JDT v PDL (No 4) [2023] QDC 12 – Fixed costs. Our client obtained a fixed costs order against the plaintiff.
Gustin v Shalev [2019] QDC 254 – Our client’s appeal to the District Court was successful. A Judgment made in the Magistrates Court in our client’s absence was ultimately set aside.
Gustin v Shalev (No 2) [2020] QDC 2 – Successfully opposed a direction being made on an appeal to set aside a Judgment that the appellant be required to pay the respondent’s claim amount into court.
Kernohan Construction Pty Ltd v Gillham [2023] QCAT 231 – Dismissal of costs applications in QCAT proceedings in relation to a building and construction dispute.
Kloprogge v Queensland University of Technology [2017] QDC 43 – Judgment after a trial in the District Court. We acted for the successful Plaintiff in a claim for damages for breach of contract.
Kloprogge v Queensland University of Technology (No 2) [2017] QDC 118 – Costs Orders. Application for indemnity costs refused. Costs follow the event. Standard costs ordered.
O’Connor & Ors v Hough & Ors (No 2) [2017] QSC 68 – Proceedings for contempt of court for a failure to comply with undertakings contained in a Court order.
Robb v Tunio [2014] QCA 127 – Dismissal of an appeal from QCAT to the Queensland Court of Appeal in relation to an alleged loan. We acted for the successful Respondent.
Thomas & Anor v Kendon & Ors [2012] QDC 95 – Successful application to set aside a default judgment. Consideration of the service requirements under the Service and Execution of Process Act. Robert Aitken was involved for Aitken Wilson Lawyers.
Horne v Gilshenan & Luton [2010] QDC 491 – Claim for damages for negligence against a law firm. Robert Aitken acted for the successful plaintiff.
R v OAB [2024] QCA 51 – Successful application for leave to appeal and appeal to the Queensland Court of Appeal on the grounds that our client’s sentence was manifestly excessive. The sentence was set aside, and no conviction was recorded.
R v LAK [2018] QCA 30 – Appeal to the Queensland Court of Appeal – appeal against conviction.
R v Moti [2009] QSC 293 – Supreme Court of Queensland proceedings in relation to an application to set aside a subpoena. Consideration of the principles required to be established for an order that documents not be produced under a subpoena.
Gray v Commissioner of Police [2018] QDC 179 – Appeal to the District Court under section 222 of the Justices Act.
George v Queensland Police Service [2015] QDC 163 – Appeal to the District Court under section 222 of the Justices Act. The sentence was set aside.
R v WJA [2023] QDCPR 102 – Application for a pre-trial ruling in relation to protected counselling communications.
AMA v PGM [2021] QDC 26 – Successful Appeal to the District Court of Queensland. Denial of procedural fairness.
Hickey v State of Queensland (Department of Communities, Disability Services and Seniors) (Disability Accommodation and Respite and Forensic Disability Service [2020] ICQ 22 – Unfair dismissal appeal. Our client’s appeal was allowed.
In addition to the various proceedings above in which the Court has published decisions, we have acted in the following types of significant matters:
Defending various regulatory prosecutions often commenced by complaint and summons.
Applications for urgent injunctions to restrain the sale of property;
Applications for urgent freezing orders (Mareva orders);
Responding to applications for freezing orders and search orders (Anton Piller orders);
Claims for further provision under from deceased estates under section 41 of the Succession Act;
Building and construction disputes, including involving unlicenced builders or defective building work;
Claims under the Australian Consumer Law for misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct, etc;
Claims against insurers for damages for breach of contract;
Claims for negligence against insurance brokers, accountants, lawyers, etc;
Claims in relation to real property (land) on the basis of a constructive trust or a resulting trust;
Claims in relation to caveats on properties;
Debt recovery claims – for both plaintiffs and defendants;
Defamation claims – for both plaintiffs and defendants;
Brisbane
Aitken Whyte Lawyers Brisbane
2/414 Upper Roma Street
Brisbane QLD 4000
Ph: 07 3229 4459
Fax: +617 3211 9311
E: enquiries@awbrisbanelawyers.com.au
