LegalLink
CasesJudgesLaw FirmsChatPricing
LegalLink
LegalLink

AI-powered legal consultation

Product

  • Cases
  • Judges
  • Law Firms
  • Chat
  • Pricing

Company

  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Cookies Policy
  • service@legallink.info

Resources

  • Feedback

Explore Lawyer Registers by State

  • New South Wales, NSW
  • Queensland, QLD
  • Western Australia, WA
  • South Australia, SA
  • Tasmania, TAS
  • Australian Capital Territory, ACT
  • Northern Territory, NT
  • Victoria, VIC
© 2026 LegalLink. All rights reserved.
HomeCases

Real Australian Case Law

Every search returns plain-English summaries grounded in published judgments — never invented precedent.

Filters
19 cases linked to Shand Taylor Lawyers · sorted by most recent
Firm:Shand Taylor Lawyers
  • PROCEDURESUPREME COURT PROCEDUREQUEENSLANDPROCEDURE UNDER THE UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES

Queensland Supreme Court Strikes Out Major Claims in Construction Dispute as Earthtec Ordered to Provide $550,000 Security for Costs

2025-10-23 Hon. Justice FREEBURN

根据1999年《统一民事诉讼规则》(UCPR)第171条规定,起诉状被驳回。 原告被允许重新提起诉讼。 根据UCPR第670(1)条或者《2010年公司法》(C’th)第1335(1)条的规定,原告需为被告支付550,000美元的诉讼费用以进行拟议中介。 双方将就这些命令和费用表达意见。

McCullough RobertsonShand Taylor Lawyers
Read case brief
  • PROCEDURECIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTSCROSSCLAIMS: SET

    Legal Tug-of-War: Court Weighs Equitable Set-Off in High-Profile Dispute Between Sellers and Buyers

    2023-11-26 Hon. Justice APPLEGARTH

    在相关方完成利益计算后,须提交判决形式。

    Shand Taylor Lawyers
    Read case brief
  • CONTRACTGENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLESCONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTSINTERPRETATION OF MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACTS AND OTHER MATTERS

    Court Upholds Binding Contract After Dispute Over Notice to Proceed in Construction Case

    2023-11-07 Hon. Justice MULLINS P

    上诉被驳回,并须承担费用。

    Shand Taylor Lawyers
    Read case brief
  • ADMINISTRATIVE LAWProcedural fairnessWhether the adjudicator afforded parties procedural fairness under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW)Where necessary provision of procedural fairness attenuated in the context of the statute

    High Court Verdict: Demex Wins Landmark Appeal in High-Stakes Asbestos Remediation Case

    2023-11-01 Hon. Justice MITCHELMORE AT [1]

    法庭允许上诉并承担费用。 取消最高法院于2022年10月25日做出的1、2和4号法令,并改为如下命令: (a) 驳回传票中的第4-8号祈求。 (b) 原告支付被告的费用。

    Shand Taylor Lawyers
    Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3(4), 13, 14, 17(3)(c), 18, 20, 21(2), 21(3), 21(4), 22(2), 22(3)(b), 32
    Read case brief
  • REAL PROPERTYTORRENS TITLEINDEFEASIBILITY OF TITLEEXCEPTIONS TO INDEFEASIBILITY

    Fraudulent Signature Costs State: $2.7 Million Payout for Deceived Homebuyers

    2023-10-10 Hon. Justice MORRISON

    上诉被驳回。上诉人需支付被上诉方与此次上诉相关的费用。

    Shand Taylor Lawyers
    Read case brief
  • CONTRACTSBUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTSREMUNERATIONSTATUTORY REGULATION OF ENTITLEMENT TO AND RECOVERY OF PROGRESS PAYMENTS

    Court Rules on High-Stakes Payment Dispute: Adjudication Decision Upheld in $72K Building Case

    2023-09-20 Hon. Justice APPLEGARTH

    申请被驳回。申请人需支付第一被告在本程序中产生的费用及相关费用,若未达成一致,将予以评估。

    Shand Taylor LawyersBELL LEGAL GROUP
    Read case brief
  • ADMINISTRATIVE LAWJUDICIAL REVIEWREVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCTDECISIONS TO WHICH JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION APPLIES

    Court Upholds Child Protection Decision Amid Allegations of Bias: Social Worker’s Challenge Dismissed

    2023-08-09 Hon. Justice CROWLEY

    2022年8月5日提交的申请被驳回。申请人需按标准标准支付被申请人的费用。

    Shand Taylor Lawyers
    Read case brief
  • MAGISTRATESAPPEALGROUNDS OF APPEALUCPR r.389

    Court Victory: Appeal Leads to Dismissal of Stalled Loan Dispute After Years of Delay

    2023-05-04 Hon. Justice DEARDEN

    允许上诉。

    Shand Taylor LawyersMcInnes Wilson Lawyers Melbourne
    Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)
    Read case brief
  • REAL PROPERTYTORRENS TITLEASSURANCE FUNDS, COMPENSATION AND REMEDIES FOR DEPRIVATIONDEPRIVATION OF INTEREST IN LAND

    Fraudulent Mortgage Fiasco: Court Orders $2.7 Million Compensation Amidst Tangled Property Dispute

    2023-04-27 Hon. Justice CROWLEY

    原告索赔费用及相关费用的标准根据责任方划分如下: 一至七被告、十二被告和第三方被告需支付原告索赔费用及相关费用的三分之二。 八和九被告需支付原告索赔费用及相关费用的三分之一。 一至七被告、十二被告和第三方被告需支付第十一被告索赔费用及相关费用的三分之二。 八和九被告需支付第十一被告索赔费用及相关费用的三分之一。 一至六被告需支付八和九被告对其提起的第三方索赔的费用及相关费用。 第十一被告需支付八和九被告对其提起的第三方索赔的费用及相关费用。

    Shand Taylor LawyersMarino Law
    Read case brief
  • CONTRACTGENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLESCONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTSINTERPRETATION OF MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACTS AND OTHER MATTERS

    Court Rules Contract Dispute Reported from Lakeside Robina Construction Project Remains Valid Amid Precedent Conditions Challenge

    2023-01-29 Hon. Justice BROWN

    申请人和被申请人之间的合同仍然有效,并对双方具有约束力。双方需在七天内提交不超过两页的费用有关的文件,并且法院将在未另行指示的情况下基于提交文件进行决定。

    Shand Taylor Lawyers
    Read case brief
  • PRACTICE & PROCEDURECostsassessment of costsrespondent to pay applicant’s costs fixed

    Court Orders Respondent to Pay $25,000 in Legal Costs Following Fair Work Act Violations

    2022-11-20 Hon. Justice VASTA BRISBANE

    被申请人应支付申请人相关申请费用,金额为25,000美元。注:法庭记录条目将决定最终判决形式。注:法院可根据《2021年联邦巡回法院及澳大利亚家庭法院(第2分部)(普通联邦法)规则》第17.05条(2)(g)修正或撤销判决或命令以更正轻微的排版或语法错误,或根据第17.05条记录判令的变更。

    Shand Taylor LawyersK&L Gates LLP
    Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth): s, 546, s 570
    Read case brief
  • INDUSTRIAL LAWAppropriate civil penalties to be imposed on the respondent pursuant to section 546 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)penalties to be paid to the applicant

    Justice Served: Court Orders $75,600 Penalty Against Willis Bros for Unlawful Employment Practices

    2022-11-03 Hon. Justice TONKIN BRISBANE

    根据2009年澳大利亚《公平工作法案》第546条,被告应支付44000澳元的罚款,用于补偿2022年6月9日声明中的第一和第二项违规行为。 根据2009年澳大利亚《公平工作法案》第546条,被告应支付31500澳元的罚款,用于补偿2022年6月9日声明中的第三项违规行为。 这两项罚款总共75600澳元,应在此命令日期后的28天内直接支付给申请人。 如在此命令日期后的28天内仍有75600澳元的部分未支付,被告应支付利息。 成本的申请被移交给澳大利亚联邦巡回法院和家事法院(第2分部)(普通法)的另一位法官进行决定。 注意:命令的形式将根据法庭记录的输入进行调整。 注意:根据澳大利亚联邦巡回法院和家事法院(第2分部)(普通联邦法)规则2021年(Cth)第17.05(2)(g)条款,法院可以更改或撤销判决或命令以纠正小的打字或语法错误,或根据澳大利亚联邦巡回法院和家事法院(第二分部)(普通联邦法)规则2021年(Cth)第17.05条款记录命令的变更。

    Shand Taylor Lawyers
    Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
    Read case brief
  • BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTIONadjudication determinationsubcontractor entitled to $470,000adjudicator stated parties “in complete agreement” on state of completion and value of works

    Builder's Claim Dismissed: Court Rules Subcontractor to Receive $470K Despite Dispute Over Payment

    2022-11-03 Hon. Justice REES

    判决废止并被罚款。

    Shand Taylor Lawyers
    Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW), s 22(2)
    Read case brief
  • CORPORATIONSVOLUNTARY ADMINISTRATIONADMINISTRATORREMUNERATION

    Court Ruling Upholds Administrator's Fees: Insolvency Case Dismissed

    2022-09-27 Hon. Justice MULLINS P

    上诉被驳回。上诉人支付对上诉相关的费用给被上诉方。

    Shand Taylor LawyersMcInnes Wilson Lawyers Melbourne
    Read case brief
  • CONTRACTSBUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTSREMUNERATIONSTATUTORY REGULATION OF ENTITLEMENT TO AND RECOVERY OF PROGRESS PAYMENTS

    Court Rules Against Contractor in Email Payment Dispute: Service Timing in Construction Claims Takes Center Stage

    2022-08-29 Hon. Justice CROWLEY

    裁定驳回申请人的申请,并且要求申请人承担被申请人的费用。

    Shand Taylor LawyersHWL Ebsworth Lawyers
    Read case brief
  • CONTRACTSBUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTSREMUNERATIONSTATUTORY REGULATION OF ENTITLEMENT TO AND RECOVERY OF PROGRESS PAYMENTS

    Building Dispute Escalates: Court Denies Demex's Bid to Block $386K Payment to Marine Civil Contractors

    2022-06-22 Hon. Justice BOWSKILL

    2022年6月10日提交的申请被驳回; 申请费用由第一被告承担。

    Shand Taylor Lawyers
    Read case brief
  • INDUSTRIAL LAWAdverse actionwhether adverse action taken because employee exercised a workplace rightwhether employment terminated because employee suffered from a disability

    Judgment Day: Court Awards $162,631 to Ex-Employee After Disability Discrimination by Willis Bros

    2022-06-08 Hon. Justice TONKIN BRISBANE

    根据《工作条件法案》第545条规定,被申诉方应当在Willis Bros Installations (Qld) Pty Ltd接到本命令之日起28天内,支付给申请人162,631美元的补偿金,此外还要按照《澳大利亚联邦巡回法院法案1999》第76(3)条计算的利息支付。 法庭将于2022年8月3日上午10:00就对被申诉方进行的上述《公平工作法案2009》违规行为是否需要处以罚款进行听证。 注意:命令的形式可能会根据法院的记录进行修改。 注意:此份法院判决原因的副本可能会经过审查,以纠正次要的打字或语法错误(根据《联邦巡回和家庭法院法案(第2分部)》2021年(Cth)第17.05(2)(g)条规定),或者根据《联邦巡回和家庭法院法案(第2分部)》2021年(Cth)第17.05条规定记录对命令的变更。

    Shand Taylor LawyersK&L Gates LLP
    Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld)
    Read case brief
  • CIVIL PROCEDUREpreliminary discoveryto identify potential cause of actionCOSTS

    Landmark Ruling: Court's Preliminary Discovery Sheds Light on Costs in Civil Proceedings

    2022-04-13 Hon. Justice GARLING

    请参阅[28]。

    Shand Taylor LawyersCorrs Chambers Westgarth
    Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 r 5.3
    Read case brief
  • CONTRACTSREMEDIESLIQUIDATED DAMAGESPENALTY

    Court Upholds Construction Contract: Liquidated Damages Clause Solid as Rock Amidst Legal Challenges

    2021-08-19 Hon. Justice PORTER QC

    关于2020年8月4日原告和被告之间合同的第14(a)条款是否因不确定性而无效的问题,答案是该合同不因不确定性而无效。 关于合同的第14(a)条款是否作为一种惩罚而无效的问题,答案是该合同不因作为惩罚而无效。

    Shand Taylor Lawyers
    Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r. 483, Part 5 of Chapter 13
    Read case brief
  • Page 1 of 1 · 19 results