Dundas Lawyers® provides services to businesses at all stages of the business lifecycle in every state and territory of Australia and internationally. Whether it’s assisting you to grow your business or to protect what you have achieved, we provide services that are commercially relevant and technically astute.
Commercial law services
Corporate lawyer Brisbane
Our Brisbane Corporate Lawyers advise clients on all aspects of corporate law and compliance with the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). We advise organisations on how to create, build and protect sustainable shareholder value. With our unique commercial perspective and multidisciplinary approach, we advise…
Employment law for employers
Brisbane’s Dundas Lawyers® advises employers and companies throughout Australia on a range of employment law issues to ensure their rights are upheld and their obligations are accurately documented. Our specialists apply our in-depth knowledge of all aspects of the legislative framework of employment…
Franchising lawyers
Dundas Lawyers® advises Franchisors and Franchisees on all aspects of “Franchising Law” and compliance with the Franchising Code of Conduct (Code) as enforced by the Australian Competition and Consumer and Commission (ACCC). The activities of Franchisors and Franchisees are regulated…
Joint venture law
Dundas Lawyers® advises clients on all aspects of joint venture law from selection of the most appropriate joint venture structure in the circumstances to negotiating its terms. Sometimes, it really is just a matter of putting the most appropriate pieces…
Legal due diligence
Due diligence in a legal context means much more than simply verifying background information on a particular transaction. There is no widely accepted definition of the term. In the context of capital raising, the term takes its meaning from sections…
Mergers and business acquisitions
Dundas Lawyers® advises clients throughout Australia on all aspects of mergers and business acquisitions (M&A) transactions for proprietary and publicly unlisted entities. The Firm’s expertise is the project management of larger legal engagements so as to minimise the costs and overall time…
Privacy breach lawyers
Dundas Lawyers® advises organisations on all aspects of compliance with the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act) and the Australian Privacy Principles (APP’s). Despite the Privacy Act having been in force for well over two decades, there are many misconceptions about…
Transaction structuring
Dundas Lawyers® advises clients on all types of entity structures in the context of a commercial transaction. Our multi-disciplined team create a wide variety of commercial entities and often speak to groups on the legal issues associated with various different…
Tax law
Dundas Lawyers® advises its clients on business transactions, restructuring and tax effective commercial business structures. We often have to consider both Commonwealth and State based tax issues when advising on any sort of structuring or restructuring of businesses of various…
Disclaimer
This page contains general commentary only about commercial law. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.
Why choose Dundas Lawyers®?
Having exerted Blood Sweat and Years® since April 2010 we are the team you want on your side for the long term to act as the ‘bodyguard’ for your business to complete legal forensic investigations and case preparation. Some of the reasons client’s choose Dundas Lawyers® include:
- our Uncommon business acumen;
- our Uncommon expertise in transactional, compliance and litigious matters;
- our Uncommon expertise forensic case preparation;
- our Uncommon customer focus;
- the fact that we don’t just know law, we know business!
- how we leverage our Uncommon Nous® to provide client solutions.
For a confidential, no obligation initial telephone call to find out how we can help your business gain an uncommon advantage in commercial law please phone our team on either 1300 386 529 or 07 3221 0013.
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Complete the form below and we will respond to your enquiry within one (1) business day from the moment you press Submit.
Commercial law enquiry
Recent insights about commercial law
-
Drag-along provisions challenged in Mobile Asset Case
The case of Mobile Asset Holdings Ltd [2026] ATP 7 (Mobile Asset Case) concerned a proposed special resolution to insert drag-along and tag-along rights into the company constitution of Mobile Asset Holdings Ltd ACN 614 791 043 (Mobile Asset).[1] Ultimately, the Australian Takeovers Panel (Panel) decided that Mobile Asset could not hold a general meeting…
-
Breach of duties as oppression – Our Jim & Felicja Superfund v Lindenfels
The case of Our Jim & Felicja Superfund Pty Ltd as trustee for the Jim & Felicja Superannuation Fund v Lindenfels Pte Ltd [2026] FCA 307 (Superfund v Lindenfels) is a reminder that shareholder oppression under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001(Cth) (Corporations Act) must be established on its own terms, particularly where a…
-
What ASIC’s new DIN laws mean for Australian directors
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has announced that, from 1 July 2027, obligations surrounding director identification numbers (Director IDs) will change. The amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) which are set to commence will require that companies provide Director IDs to ASIC. This article will briefly explain the function of…
-
WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context
The recent case of WIJOAV Services Pty Ltd v Goldstone Private Equity Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 622 (WIJOAV v Goldstone) involved a claim of shareholder oppression under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act). The case established that a shareholder in a private equity fund may be oppressed by a co-investor where…
-
Mere puffery vs misleading and deceptive conduct – where is the line?
In the case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54 (ACCC v TPG), the High Court of Australia (High Court) drew a distinction between mere puffery and representations with the intention of marketing. This article explores the decision in ACCC v TPG and the distinction between puffery and…
-
Federal Court dismisses continuous disclosure claim
The Federal Court recently dismissed Australia Securities and Investment Commission’s (ASIC) claim in Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Nuix Limited [2026] FCA 490 (ASIC v Nuix) that Nuix Limited breached its obligations under section 674 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act). Nuix Limited (Nuix) successfully contested ASIC’s allegation that it had breached…
-
Individual Flexibility Arrangements: an overview
Modern awards and enterprise agreements set out the minimum terms and conditions of employment for most Australian workers performing different roles. The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) provides a mechanism by which an employer and an individual employee may, by agreement, adjust the operation of certain terms in their Award to better suit theircircumstances. …
-
Coercive control and shareholder oppression
The Criminal Law (Coercive Control and Affirmative Consent) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Qld) came into effect on 18 March 2024, by adding chapter 29A to the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) (Criminal Code). This chapter establishes a separate offence of “coercive control’, which stems from domestic violence offences and involves the use of…
Recent Federal Court decisions regarding commercial law
-
Gensco Laboratories, LLC v Care A2 Plus Pty Ltd (receiver appointed) (No 2) [2024] FCA 23
COSTS – interlocutory application for security for costs of and incidental to the statement of cross claim (Cross Claim) by applicants/cross-respondents (application) – whether there is reason to believe that the first respondent could not meet an adverse costs order – whether Cross Claim is purely defensive – quantum of security of costs to be…
-
Munkara v Santos NA Barossa Pty Ltd (No 3) [2024] FCA 9
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW – where the respondent holds a pipeline licence issued under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (Cth) authorising it to construct a 262km long gas export pipeline in the Timor Sea – where the applicants are Aboriginal people from the Tiwi Islands – where the pipeline would pass the west…
-
Siemens WLL v BIC Contracting LLC (stay) [2023] FCA 1669
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – stay of orders setting aside garnishee order – prejudice to applicants if stay not granted – risk of harm to garnishee and other third parties
