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
——— 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
-
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…
-
Apple and Google misused market power to monopolise app stores
On 12 August 2025, Justice Beach of the Federal Court of Australia (Court) delivered four (4) landmark judgments. The decisions of Epic Games, Inc & Anor v Apple Inc & Anor (EG v Apple) and Epic Games, Inc & Anor v Google LLC & Ors (EG v Google), together the (EG Cases), alongside Anthony &…
-
What is a concise statement?
A concise statement is a brief, plain language document, often drafted in narrative form, used by the Federal Court of Australia (Federal Court) to ‘triage’ a case.[1] Concise statements were introduced as part of the Federal Courts Commercial and Corporations Practice Note (Practice Note), which came into effect on 25 October 2016. Its stated purpose…
-
Default judgment – contumacious non-compliance with Court orders
The recent Federal Court case of Pieman v Monks Resources PL v Monks [2025] FCA 88 (Pieman v Monks v Monks) shows the lengths a plaintiff must go to before the Court will order default judgment based on ongoing failure by a defendant to comply with orders. The case involved allegations of misleading and deceptive…
-
Appointment of experts by arbitral tribunal
Article 26 (Article 26) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (Model Law) empowers an arbitral tribunal (Tribunal) to appoint its own expert in a dispute.[1] The expert’s role is to create a report and provide oral testimony. While parties may appoint their own experts, doing so can contravene principles of impartiality and…
Recent Federal Court decisions regarding litigation and disputes
-
ASIC v Alshakshir [2025] FCA 19
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory application for urgent interim relief – where plaintiff seeks travel orders preventing defendant from leaving Australia pursuant to s 1323 of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – where ex parte orders made and application adjourned to allow inter partes hearing – where plaintiff has commenced investigation into defendant and associated entities…
-
Roadpost Inc v Beam Communications PL [2025] FCA 120
ARBITRATION – application for enforcement of a foreign arbitral award under s 8(3) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) – where orders for enforcement were proposed by consent – whether Court can or should make a declaratory order enforcing a declaration in an arbitral award – where orders revised to be in the form…
-
Blue Rock Australia PL v Kaushik [2025] FCA 176
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory application for urgent injunctive relief – where respondent a former employee of applicant’s – where employment contract contained restraint clause prohibiting post-employment solicitation of clients – where respondent tendered resignation to commence employment with applicant’s competitor – where applicant seeks injunction to prevent solicitation of clients – enforceability of covenants…
