this was a 12 day trial with over 15 witnesses and significant periods of cross examination and conflicting expert evidence. The Defendant’s witnesses were disbelieved in critical matters. James’ client was awarded over $300,000.

A significant discreet question on whether children of a biological parent and step-parent who never married can be step children for the purposes of the Administration & Probate Act 1958. Jame’s client was held to be within the class of eligible applicants for family provision. The Defendant has appealed to a three member bench of the Court of Appeal.

A proceeding commencing with a televised (it was silly season) relief against forfeiture application on 21 December, 2015 and following by the trial of $10 million claim against the defendant and counterclaim that was heard for 3 days before His Honour Justice Croft. Neither the claim nor counterclaim were made out. Television cameras were allowed to set up in the court room for the 7.30am hearing against the lock out.

James’ cross-examination of the defendant and tactical use of subpoenas resulted in the trial judge ruling that: “..these reasons for judgment are to be referred to the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation at the Australian Tax Office as well as the Minister of the Department of Human Services to take such action as they wish in reviewing the affairs of the defendant” at [110].

James failed to get special leave from the High Court to appeal a decision of the Full Court to properly credit an employer for paying its staff well over the award on the basis that the argument had not been raised at trial (by different Counsel !). See the article here.

A freezing order for a listed company arising from related party transactions and alleged misappropriation by a past managing director. This ran for three days before Davies J. with James for the Applicant. The Respondent’s two main witnesses were found not to be witnesses of truth. The applicant was awarded $548,581 and $241,262 interest. See judgment here.

See The Australian article here.

a rare setting aside of liquidators fees by reason of conflict of interest by Associate Justice Efthim – currently on appeal Conalpin Pty Ltd, Dolmear Pty Ltd vs Ross McDermott. See the article here.

A 4-day trial to establish who controlled the corporate owner of a $40 million apartment development.

See Judgement here.

See the article here.

CONTRACTS – commercial agreement – breach of a joint venture agreement relating to the sale and repurchase of earth-moving equipment - misleading and deceptive conduct – goods – fit for purpose – merchantable quality.(Federal Court, Brisbane)

See judgement here.

A defamation claim arising from the Channel 7 program, Today Tonite (County Court)

See judgment here.

NSW Supreme Court defamation proceeding (acting for the defendant, statement of claim successfully struck out and injunction dissolved.

See judgment here.

A shareholder oppression action involving a considerable contest over expert valuation evidence.

Fraud NSW Supreme Court.

See the decision here.

A rare overturning of a 100% a year interest rate clause not on the ground that it is an unconscionable penalty at common law and in equity but pursuant to the Trade Practices Act (1974).

Marava and anton pillar orders in the Victorian Supreme Court involving an alleged multi-million dollar fraud originating out of China.

Several appearances in the Federal Court, Brisbane, involving a multi-million-dollar debt. The matter has involved an intricate international tracing exercise and a mareva injunction.

See the decision here.

Cross vesting from Federal Court (Sydney) to Supreme Court of Victoria of proceedings which involve allegations of defamation (click here for decision) and the question is what is “organic”. James appeared in Sydney opposed to Stuart Littlemore QC. Supreme Court proceedings: Snowy Mountains Organic Dairy Products Pty Ltd v ABC & Ors and Snowy Mountains Organic Dairy Products Pty Ltd v Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria. Federal Court proceeding: Snowy Mountains Organic Dairy Products Pty Ltd v Wholefoods & Anor.

See decision here.