Litigation and Dispute Resolution

MinterEllison has an outstanding track record in the strategic resolution of disputes throughout Australia and the Asia Pacific region and is recognised as a leader in dispute resolution. Our practice has renowned depth of knowledge and expertise in every main land capital city of Australia, in New Zealand and Hong Kong. This breadth enables us to meet our clients needs quickly and seamlessly and to access courts in all jurisdictions expeditiously when injunctions are required.

Our aim is to assist clients to avoid disputes wherever possible, but we realise that disputes are sometimes an inevitable part of doing business. We work with our clients to provide practical advice and devise litigation strategies that realistically identify the prospects of success. Where appropriate, we explore alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation or arbitration.

We act in some of the most complex and important litigation in the Australian market, and have significant experience representing clients involved in high profile litigation, investigations by regulators including the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and other government inquiries.

We are known for our strength in finding commercially-focused solutions to resolve disputes. The Asia Pacific Legal 500 describes MinterEllison's dispute resolution team as 'results focused' and 'very commercial', while Chambers Global 2010 applauds our lawyers for 'excellent responsiveness' and for being 'very accessible'.

10 April 2017

Partner Beverley Newbold and Senior Associate Tamlyn Mills have written the Australian chapter of the International Comparative Legal Guide to: Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 2017.

9 February 2017

On 31 January 2017, the Supreme Court of New South Wales handed down judgment in In the matter of OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Limited (administrators appointed). This important decision highlights the severe consequences that may follow from seemingly innocuous mistakes made when registering security interests. The error that gave rise to the proceeding was the use of an Australian Business Number (ABN) instead of an Australian Company Number (ACN) to identify the grantor in the financing statement. The judgment focuses attention on the importance of strictly complying with the registration requirements of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA); confirms the constitutional validity of the PPSA vesting provisions; and also illustrates the limits of the Court's powers under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) to extend the time for making PPSA registrations when the subject security interest has already vested in the grantor under the PPSA.

9 May 2016

On 20 April 2016, the first judgment in Australia to accept what is known as the 'indirect market based theory of causation' was handed down by a single judge of the NSW Supreme Court. The case has important implications for numerous ASX-listed companies, particularly those involved in shareholder class actions, where the issue of how to prove causation has been the subject of significant debate.

31 March 2016

Beverley Newbold and Tamlyn Mills have co-authored the Australian chapter of The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 2016 (1st ed) published by Global Legal Group in March 2016.

25 January 2016

Late last year, the High Court handed down its decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] HCA 48. The ATO has recently issued a Decision Impact Statement (DIS) setting out its view of the consequences of the High Court's decision.