Success in litigation is important.
The outcome can impact not only the dispute you may be facing, but your future and livelihood.
Choose a firm with the experience and focus to resolve your dispute and protect your rights.
Aitken Whyte Lawyer’s principal, Robert Aitken, began practicing in commercial law firms. He has over 25 years of experience resolving disputes.
We focus on results and take a tailored approach to dispute resolution.
We will use all forms of alternative dispute resolution to resolve your matter on the best terms for you.
Our Brisbane litigation lawyers are aggressive and seasoned litigators. We understand that your rights are valuable.
Where a threat to your livelihood or business exists, call Aitken Whyte Lawyers. Your choice for Litigation and Dispute Resolution Lawyers in Brisbane.
A litigation expert can achieve the fastest resolution of a dispute.
You should consider obtaining legal representation from a Brisbane litigation lawyer if:
Some of the key areas our Brisbane litigation lawyers act in are:
Our Brisbane litigation lawyers have significant experience in Caveat Removal. Some examples include:
Trusts can give rise to complex litigation. Disputes may occur due to their management or the division of assets. Robert Aitken has significant experience with complex trusts, including the Removal of Trustees.
If Challenging A Will or general intestacy Succession Act provisions, it is important to engage a firm with a strong understanding of succession law. The Succession Act allows the Supreme Court to distribute a deceased’s estate as is legally appropriate. This can include awarding part of an estate to a spouse, child or dependent not provided for in a Will.
If an individual or business owes you money, our Brisbane civil lawyers can:
If someone claims you owe them money and you do not agree, our civil lawyers in Brisbane can defend you. This includes if there is already a judgment against you that you need set aside.
Business relationships are important but can be volatile.
Being in business, our Brisbane civil lawyers know the importance of commerciality. Your legal litigation matter running as planned will allow you to run your business as usual.
Some of the commercial disputes our Brisbane litigation lawyers assist with include:
Company Officeholders have duties they must uphold.
Our Brisbane civil lawyers have experience acting for shareholders in actions against directors and the company. This includes winding up a company on just and equitable grounds or oppression or if a director has breached their fiduciary duties.
If you are in a dispute with a:
contact us for commercial results.
Our Brisbane litigation lawyers can assist:
Your business will need to enter contacts with other parties. When disputes arise, we can protect your business interests.
Further examples of the types of commercial, civil and dispute legal services our lawyers handle are listed in this article.
Claims for Defamation have become more regular as more business moves online.
We will fight to defend your reputation. Our Brisbane civil lawyers have significant experience in this area of law. We have acted in cases ranging from:
A Professional Negligence claim may be available to you if:
In these circumstances, you may be able to recover any damages you have sustained due to their act or omission, breach of duty or breach of contract.
Situations giving rise to a professional negligence claim can include:
Fair trading laws govern many transactions and agreements. If you have entered a contract with unfair terms the Trade Practices Act is there to protect you.
The Australian Consumer Law (ACL) regulates:
which may mislead or deceive.
Claims for misleading and deceptive conduct often arise out of:
You know the result you want. We have the expertise to guide you in achieving it.
We have an intimate knowledge of the litigation process and Court procedures.
We will provide our recommendation and present all options available, inclusive of the:
so, you can weigh them up and take the best approach.
Much of litigation occurs outside of Court. Parties will enter various strategies into play, determining the direction of the litigation. The tactics and tools you use can sway the litigation in your favour.
Our Brisbane litigation lawyers will guide you on the best strategy for every stage. This can assist to lead you to a timely and results-driven resolution. We will talk you through, for example:
are deficient.
These can include:
When you do need to appear in Court, you will do so with the confidence that we will be by your side. We will argue on your behalf with the expertise and skill you need to achieve results. Whether:
having an expert to advocate on your behalf will make the difference.
Our experience extends to all QLD and Federal Jurisdictions.
Our Brisbane civil lawyers will appear before administrative tribunals to the Federal Court.
We want it to be easy for you to access legal advice and representation. If you need a civil lawyer in Brisbane or surrounds:
We can also make a time for you to attend our offices for a conference if you would prefer.
Quilkey & Anor v Tractile Combined Pty Ltd & Ors [2022] QDC 185
UCPR COMPLIANCE – BREACH OF CONTRACT – NEGLIGENCE – MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE CONDUCT – STATEMENT OF CLAIM – WITHDRAWAL OF ADMISSIONS
Aitken Whyte Lawyers acted for the plaintiffs in these District Court proceedings and were successful in the proceedings and also in this application heard as part of the proceedings.
The application as part of the proceedings, revolved around the procedural rules for handling admissions in civil litigation, particularly under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR) in Queensland. The Plaintiffs had entered a building contract which was not performed in compliance with applicable laws, giving rise to claims for damages for breach of contract, negligence and misleading or deceptive conduct.
A dispute arose when the plaintiffs amended their statement of claim and the defendants attempted to file a new defence that disregarded prior admissions made in their initial document. The key issue was whether the defendants could automatically withdraw those admissions due to the amended claim or if they needed the court’s permission to do so, as required under Rule 188 of the UCPR.
The court discussed the importance of early and clear disclosure of each party’s case to avoid unnecessary dispute and ultimately emphasized that the defendants would need to seek the court’s leave to withdraw any prior admissions.
Quilkey & Anor – v – Tractile Combined Pty Ltd & Ors [2023] QDC
Quilkey & Anor -v- Tractile Combined Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2023] QDC 223
UNLAWFUL BUILDING WORKS – COUNTERCLAIM – QUANTUM MERUIT – QBCC ACT 1991 – BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION DISPUTE
As part of the District Court proceedings in this case where we successfully acted for the plaintiffs, our clients sued Tractile Combined Pty Ltd for damages for unlawful building works alleged to be undertaken by the defendants, without the necessary building licence under section 42 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991.
The Defendants counterclaimed for relief to be paid reasonable remuneration on a quantum meruit basis. On the last day of trial, the defendant sought to amend its counterclaim to include future costs, but the application was dismissed by the court. The Judge ultimately found that the proposed amendment was not properly supported by witness evidence and would prejudice the plaintiffs.
Quilkey & Anor v Tractile Combined Pty Ltd & Ors (No 3) [2023] QDC 224
BREACH OF CONTRACT – RESTITUTION – DAMAGES – BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION DISPUTE
In this District Court proceeding, we successfully represented the plaintiffs who were awarded $219,106.18 in restitution and $219,374.14 in damages against the defendants and costs.
This case involved a dispute over contractual obligations and damages relating to the construction of a residential building, primarily relating to the dwellings roof. The court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs on their restitution and damages claims against the first, second and fourth defendants. Interest calculations on the damages and restitutionary claims were also included in the final payment.
Wallerstein v Bedington [2012] QSC 71
EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL OF TRUSTEES – POWERS, DUTIES, RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF TRUSTEES – TRUST ACT – SUCCESSION ACT
In this Supreme Court proceeding, we successfully represented the plaintiffs in a dispute concerning trust funds and the removal of the trustee and substitution and appointment of a new trustee.
The plaintiffs claimed their respective shares from a trust administered by the defendant, who had improperly categorized certain payments as wages and reimbursements. The court found that these payments were not legitimate trust distributions and the defendant had failed to fulfil his duties as trustee by mixing trust funds with personal finances.
Ultimately, the court ordered the defendant to pay specified amounts to the plaintiffs and appointed a new trustee to manage the trust and its assets. The Court also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiffs indemnity costs of the proceedings.
JTD v PDL (No 4) [2023] QDC 12
DEFAMATION – LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS ACT – AMENDMENTS – COSTS ORDER
Our firm successfully represented the defendant in a defamation proceeding, where the defendant sought to prevent amendments to the plaintiffs statement of claim.
The successful component of the application where the court disallowed two of the four proposed amendments by the plaintiff, determining that they introduced new causes of action that were time-barred. In this case, the relevant period in the Limitations of Actions Act, within which time proceedings had to have been commenced to maintain an action, had already expired by the time the proposed changes were to be included as part of the ongoing court proceedings.
The District Court of Queensland subsequently ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants costs for the application, fixed at $6,500 to avoid undue delay and expense.
Kloprogge v Queensland University of Technology (No 2) [2017] QPC 118
BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – COSTS ORDER – INDEMNITY COSTS – STANDARD COSTS
In this proceeding, the District Court of Queensland ruled in favour of our client, the plaintiff, awarding him $663,000 in damages for breach of contract against the Defendant plus costs.
Following the trial, the plaintiff sought an indemnity costs order against the defendant due to a prior settlement offer he had made that was not accepted by the defendant. The plaintiff argued that the defendant, in rejecting his offer, should pay all his costs of the proceedings on the indemnity basis because ultimately, he was more successful following a trial than if the defendant had accepted the offer made to it. The Court determined however that the Defendants refusal to accept the second offer was not unreasonable, given significant changes in the cases circumstances.
Ultimately, the Court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiffs costs on a standard basis of the whole proceedings, rather than on the indemnity costs.
O’Connor v Hough (No 2) [2017] QSC 68
CONTEMPT OF COURT – BREACHES OF COURT ORDERS – UNDERTAKINGS – PURGING CONTEMPT
In this Supreme Court proceeding, we acted for the second respondent, who was accused by the second applicant of breaching two undertakings outlined in court orders.
the first allegation claimed that Mr. Hough had failed or refused to answer certain queries. This charge was dismissed as it was found that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his failure to address the queries was willful rather than inadvertent or misinterpreted.
The second allegation asserted that Mr. Hough failed to truthfully answer JBS’ queries. The court found the Mr. Hough knowingly made multiple false assertations regarding loans and cash advances to companies under his control to justify financial activities.
However, the second respondent was given an opportunity to purge his contempt by submitting truthful information concerning penalties, compensation and costs.
Thomas & Ano v Kendon & Ors [2012] QDC
DEFAULT JUDGEMENT – SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF PROCESS ACT – CLAIM AND STATEMENT OF CLAIM – PRIMA FACIE DEFENCE
We successfully acted for the first, second and third defendants in this District Court proceeding, resulting in the setting aside of a default judgement that had been entered against our clients.
The judgement was overturned on the grounds that the Statement of Claim was defective, and there were significant issues with the service under the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) (SEPA).
The court found that the SEPA notice attached to the claim was incomplete and confusing, failing to meet statutory requirements and caused substantial injustice to the first defendant.
As a result, the judgement against the defendants was set aside and they were able to file a Notice of Intention to Defend and further, the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants’ cost of the application.
Brisbane
Aitken Whyte Lawyers Brisbane
2/414 Upper Roma Street
Brisbane QLD 4000
