Dundas Lawyers® advises its clients on all aspects of corporate and commercial dispute resolution. Managing risk and implementing strategies to minimise risk is essential for every business. We take a commercial view to litigious matters, always considering alternative dispute resolution processes to resolve the legal issues without resorting to the costs and uncertainties associated with litigation.
Dundas Lawyers® is able to provide advice to minimise risk and achieve the optimal outcome for your business. We’ll be upfront about your legal position. We work with clients to formulate and execute a strategy designed to ensure the best outcome considering the circumstances. We are prepared to assist throughout the entire process, even when the pieces start to fall.
Checkmate
If litigation is unavoidable, we will be realistic about the costs and the benefits whilst fearlessly advocating our clients position.
Our litigation and disputes services
Dundas Lawyers® advise and act in a broad range of litigation and dispute matters including (but not limited to):
- Commercial and contractual disputes;
- Competition law and trade practices;
- Directors disputes;
- Franchise disputes;
- Intellectual property disputes;
- Confidential information;
- Copyright infringement;
- Patent infringement;
- Trade mark infringement;
- Partnership disputes;
- Sale of business disputes;
- Shareholder disputes; and
- Software development disputes.
Court decisions involving litigation and disputes by Dundas Lawyers®
- Yarrawah Interactive Pty Ltd v Epiphany Games Pty Ltd (Costs) [2026] FCA 700 (3 June 2026)
- Christian v Cooper [2020] QSC 224 (24 July 2020)
- Christian v Cooper (No 2) [2020] QSC 226 (24 July 2020)
- Campbell v Sutherland [2020] FCA 765 (25 May 2020)
- Hill & Smith Holdings PLC v Safe Barriers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 8 (8 January 2020)
- Hill & Smith Holdings PLC v Safe Barriers Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1882 (27 November 2018)
- Multisteps Pty Ltd v Specialty Packaging Aust Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 587 (2 May 2018)
- Motorcycle Aftermarket Spares Pty Ltd v Tamworth Cycle Tune Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1433 (23 December 2014)
Our litigation and dispute services
Forensic investigations
A precursor to any form of civil litigation, whether initiating or defending is the collation of detailed documentary evidence capable of being used to support our client’s case theory. Many of our clients’ matters have involved identifying and managing thousands…
Intellectual property disputes lawyer
Defending or enforcing your businesses intellectual property (IP) rights in copyright, trademarks, patents and confidential information can be critical for success. IP is the new millennium battleground where the fight for competitive advantage can be won or lost. What is an…
Competition lawyers Brisbane
Dundas Lawyers® advises clients on all aspects of competition law for businesses and compliance with the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA). One of our passions is unfair business competition and the powers contained in the CCA can act…
Shareholder oppression lawyer brisbane
——— Commercial Litigation · Brisbane Shareholder Oppression Lawyers Brisbane When majority shareholders exploit their position for their own benefit, minority shareholders have legal rights. Dundas Lawyers acts in complex, high-value shareholder disputes across Brisbane and Australia. Get Legal Advice See…
Unfair competition by competitors
Years ago, the notion of unfair business competition was associated with the provisions of Trade Practices Act 1975 (Cth). Nowadays similar provisions are contained in Schedule 2 to the Australian Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (Australian Consumer Law) and generally thought…
Anton piller (search) orders
An anton piller order (Anton Piller Order) is evasive an order of a Court entitling an applicant (or plaintiff) (Applicant) to physically enter the premises of the respondent (or defendant) (Respondent) to inspect, remove or make copies of documents or…
Restraint of trade enforcement
The general rule is that a restraint of trade clause in an employment contract is prima facie void, unless the employer has a legitimate interest it is protecting, and the scope of the restraint is not wider than is reasonably…
Recent videos about litigation and dispute resolution
Disclaimer
This page contains general commentary only about litigation and dispute resolution. 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.
Considering getting a lawyer to advise your business?
For a confidential, no obligation initial telephone call to find out how we can help your business gain an uncommon advantage in initiating or defending allegations in an Australian Court 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.
Litigation and dispute resolution enquiry
Legislation
Queensland
- Queensland Legislation
- Queensland Courts
- UCPR – Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
- UCPR – Court forms
- UCPR – Bulletin
Commonwealth
- Legislation – Austlii
- Legislation – Comlaw
- Federal Court of Australia
- Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – Comlaw
- Federal Court – Forms
- Commonwealth Courts Portal
- Federal Courts – eLodgment
Examples of litigious matters – 2019
- Application for Mareva Orders;
- Breach of directors duties, Supreme Court of Queensland;
- Alleged Partnership Dispute
- Breach of contact, Supreme Court of Queensland;
- Breach of contract, joint venture; and
- Misleading and deceptive conduct – Federal Court of Australia.
Recent insights about litigation and disputes
-
Telegram terror content: eSafety alleges Online Safety Act breach
Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has commenced civil penalty proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia (Court) against Emirati-based Telegram FZ-LLC (Trade License Number 94349) (Telegram), alleging that it failed to comply with obligations to detect, deter and disrupt the distribution of pro-terror material and remove unlawful material from its messaging service. The proceedings, eSafety Commissioner v…
-
Default discovery: Queensland vs Federal position
In the Supreme Court of Queensland (Supreme Court), the right to an exchange of documents is the default position in proceedings started by claim, while in the Federal Court of Australia (Federal Court) there is no entitlement to exchange of documents, and a party must persuade the Court that this exchange is necessary, proportionate and…
-
AI compliance programs: one size does not fit all
Australia does not have any standalone legislation addressing how businesses can safely implement Artificial Intelligence (AI). Use of AI by Australian businesses is, however, regulated, not by a patchwork combination of Federal and State legislation, industry-specific legislation and standards, professional body rules and guidance issued by government departments and other regulators. This article discusses the…
-
AI evidence misleading Court: Ba v Sterling Parts Australia
On 17 June 2026, Symons J delivered judgment in the case of Ba v Sterling Parts Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FedCFamC2G 1245 (Ba v Sterling Parts). Ba v Sterling Parts was a proceeding brought by Weiman Ba (Applicant) in the second division of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Court). Symons J dismissed…
-
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 publishes GenAI Practice Note
On 16 April 2026, the Federal Court of Australia (Court) published the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI) (Cth) (GenAI Practice Note).
-
Evidence of economic loss required in defamation cases
Australian Security Academy Pty Ltd v Australasian Institute of Chartered Loss Adjusters Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 924 (Australian Security Academy) involved alleged defamatory imputations against Australian Security Academy Pty Ltd (Applicant) by the Australian Institute of Chartered Loss Adjusters Pty Ltd (Respondent). The decision highlights that no defamatory imputations will exist where no…
Recent Federal Court decisions regarding litigation and disputes
-
Yarrawah Interactive PL v Epiphany Games PL(Costs)[2026] FCA 700
COSTS – proceedings dismissed – indemnity costs sought by successful respondents – offer to compromise made under rule 25.01(1) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – when offer made, no defence had been filed – not unreasonable to fail to accept offer having regard to amount of offer and quantum of claim – indemnity costs refused
-
Chan v Moore [2026] FCA 496
CORPORATIONS – rejection by liquidator of proof of debt – where proof of debt based on contested balance in director loan account – where director claims advances made to company by a related company in Hong Kong were capital contributions made by her, or on her behalf, and should be treated as credits to her…
-
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Qteq Pty Ltd (Penalty) [2026] FCA 356
COMPETITION – imposition of pecuniary penalties and related orders under s 76(1) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 – where respondents found to have induced or intended to induce contraventions of the cartel prohibitions – where business and assets of contravenor were divested after the liability judgment and penalty hearing – relevant penalty considerations…
