Litigation law refers to the rules and practices involved in resolving disputes in the court system. The term is often associated with tort cases, but litigation can come about in all kinds of cases. Likewise, most people think of litigation as synonymous with trial work, but the litigation process begins long before the first witness is called to testify. In fact, the vast majority of litigated cases never reach the inside of a courtroom.
Evans Lawyers primarily practice in the District & Supreme Court jurisdictions. We have a strong reputation for success in complex cases in the areas of Corporations, Construction & Insolvency Law.
Whilst Alternative Dispute Resolution is always a preferred option in trying to resolve disputes sometimes the parties in conflict can not agree which can result in litigation.
The process of litigation is complex and requires expertise in that specific area combined with a sensible and commercial approach.
We have acted and been successful in a number of large scale and highly complex Supreme Court actions involving shareholder oppression, breaches of the Corporations Act by Company Directors, Frauds, Loan Agreements and Construction Contracts.
Notable Decisions - Published
DTM Constructions Pty Ltd trading as QA Developments v Poole & Anor  QSC 246.
This decision concerned the amount of damages following the written reasons for awarding judgment in favour of the Plaintiff in the decision below. In acting for the Plaintiff, the court accepted the submissions of Counsel instructed by Evans Lawyers, as to the amount of damages and the awarding of costs on the indemnity basis as against each of the two defendants, resulting in a collective judgment in favour of the Plaintiff of more than $2million.
DTM Constructions P/L trading as QA Developments v Poole & Anor  QSC 210.
This decision concerned a claim by the Plaintiff against one former director and one former officer, for breaches of ss. 181 -183 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and their common law fiduciary duties. In acting for the Plaintiff, the court accepted the submissions of Counsel instructed by Evans Lawyers, that both the statutory and common law breaches alleged had been established by virtue of the Defendants diverting building contracts, that were for the benefit of the Plaintiff, to other third parties in which they had an interest and were to the detriment of the Plaintiff.
J & K Homes Pty Ltd v Evans Lawyers  QSC 24.
This decision concerned an application made by J & K Homes Pty Ltd against Evans Lawyers to have a statutory demand set aside, which had been issued for unpaid legal fees. The applicant, J & K Homes Pty Ltd, unsuccessfully argued that the time to make the application (being 21 days from the date of service) did not include the period beginning 25 December and ending 1 January in the following year. In dismissing the application, our firm was awarded costs on the indemnity basis from 24 January 2017, which was when our firm put the applicant on notice that their application would fail due to their misinterpretation of the law.
Nichols Constructions Pty Ltd v Mt Marlow Pty Ltd & Anor  QSC 1.
This decision concerned an application for summary judgment or alternatively to strike out certain paragraphs of an amended statement of claim. In acting for the first defendant (the applicant), the Court accepted the submissions of Counsel instructed by Evans Lawyers in that certain paragraphs of the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim should be struck out.
Notable Decisions - Ex Tempore
Yi Li v Mei Ling (Gold Coast) Pty Ltd v Ors- QSC 7582 of 2018.
Evans Lawyers successfully applied for and obtained summary judgment against the first defendant, Mei Ling (Gold Coast) Pty Ltd, the owner of Mei Ling Court Chinese Restaurant, for monies advanced by the plaintiff (who is a shareholder of the company) to the first defendant.
G Developments Pty Ltd v James Malcolm Tonge- QMC 431 of 2018.
Evans Lawyers successfully applied for and obtained summary judgment against the defendant (often difficult to obtain), for breach of a Deed of Settlement for monies owed to the plaintiff G Developments Pty Ltd, represented by Evans Lawyers.
HAVING CLAIM DISMISSED THE MORNING OF TRIAL FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
The Body Corporate for Suginoko Place ats Michael Vincent Baker Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd as trustee- QMC 148 of 2016.
Two years after the plaintiff, Michael Vincent Baker Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd as trustee, launched proceedings against the Body Corporate for Suginoko Place (in which the plaintiff owned a lot), on the morning of trial, the Court granted the instanta application made by Evans Lawyers that the claim against the Body Corporate be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The Court accepted the submissions made on behalf of the Body Corporate that exclusive jurisdiction for a claim against a body corporate by a lot owner rested with the Body Corporate Commissioner and is not properly pursued through the Courts in the first instance.
Given that the solicitors acting for Michael Vincent Baker Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd as trustee, were put on notice by Evans Lawyers nearly a year prior to trial, the Court awarded indemnity costs in favour of the Body Corporate.
Mr Rental Group Pty Ltd ACN 166 390 969 v 365 365 365 Pty Ltd ACN 159 624 969 & Anor- QMC 6366 OF 2017.
In acting for the second defendant, Evans Lawyers’ application to have the allegations made in the plaintiff’s statement of claim as against the second defendant was granted. The plaintiff was granted leave to re-plead.
Peter John Mullen & Anor v Ricky John Munday & Anor- QSC 12268 of 2016.
This decision involved an application to strike out substantial parts of the plaintiffs’ amended statement of claim against the defendants. In acting for the defendants, Evans Lawyers successfully achieved numerous paragraphs struck out, including numerous paragraphs of the relief sought by the plaintiffs.
RESISTING AN APPLICATION TO HAVE AN EXAMINATION SUMMONS SET ASIDE
David Lewis Clout & Anor and Craig Robert John Maindonald- QSC 5603 of 2016.
In this case, Evans Lawyers, acting for liquidator David Clout, successfully resisted an application to have an examination summons served on the Sole Director of a company in liquidation set aside.
The summons issued by the liquidator was declared effective pursuant to Rule 1.8(b) of the Corporations Proceedings Rules in Schedule 1A of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) and the Applicant was ordered pay the Liquidator’s costs of and incidental to the Application.
OBTAINING COSTS ORDER ON APPLICATION CONCEDED PRIOR TO HEARING
P Houghton Super Pty Ltd (ACN 162 742 636) as trustee for The Houghton Superannuation Fund v Craig Robert John Maindonald- QDC 315 of 2016.
OBTAINING ORDER TO DISPENSE WITH THE DEFENDANTS’ SIGNATURE ON THE REQUEST FOR TRIAL
DTM Constructions Pty Ltd trading as QA Developments v Poole & Anor- QSC 12855 of 2015.
In this case, Evans Lawyers, acting for the Plaintiff was successful in seeking Orders that, pursuant to rule 469 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), the signature of the solicitor for the First and Second Defendants be dispensed with. The defendants were also ordered to pay the Plaintiff’s costs.