News
We’re proud to celebrate ten of our barristers who have been recognised in the 2026 edition of Best Lawyers for their outstanding expertise across a range of practice areas.
Congratulations to:
- The Hon P A Bergin AO SC – Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Katrina Howard SC – Intellectual Property Law
- Jack Hynes – Insolvency and Reorganisation Law
- Ben Koch – Banking and Finance and Insolvency and Reorganisation Law
- Mark Newton – Insurance Law
- Michael Swanson – Shipping and Maritime Law
- Frank Tao – Insolvency and Reorganisation Law
- Josh Sukkar – Insurance Law (Ones to Watch)
- Andrew Berriman – International Arbitration and Litigation (Ones to Watch)
- Sefton Powrie – Insolvency and Reorganisation Law (Ones to Watch
View the full listings here.
On Friday, 4 April 2025, the Supreme Court of NSW (Stevenson J) delivered judgment in Andrews & Andrews Construction Pty Ltd v Yao; Yao v Andrews & Andrews Construction Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 322, in which Andre Zahra SC and Nicole Maddocks appeared (instructed by Chris Freeman of Christopher C Freeman & Co) for the successful plaintiff/cross-defendant, Andrews & Andrews Construction Pty Ltd.
The case concerned a construction dispute in relation to a high quality residential development and in which the defendants/owners sought to avoid payment for part of the works. The judgment considered the proper construction of the building contract and, in particular, a special condition which obliged the parties to cooperate to obtain the most competitive price for works to be undertaken and for a minimum of two quotations to be obtained for each item of work. The defendants/cross-claimants argued that the plaintiff had breached the special condition by failing to obtain two quotations for each item and that they were entitled to damages/set-off against the amount owing to the plaintiff. The defendants/cross-claimants also sought to invoke the “facilitation principle” to assist them in seeking to prove their alleged loss, relying on the High Court’s recent judgment in Cessnock City Council v 123 259 932 Pty Ltd [2024] HCA 17.
Stevenson J found that, on the proper construction of the special condition, the obligation to obtain two quotations was a joint obligation on all parties, not amenable to suit by one against the other, and that the special condition was merely exhortatory rather than a promissory condition which could be enforced by damages. His Honour otherwise concluded that the defendants/cross-claimants' attempt to rely upon the facilitation principle (had the Court found that the special condition was breached - which it did not) could not be justified in the circumstances, which included the defendants belatedly first seeking to invoke it in opening submissions made shortly prior to the commencement of the hearing, despite the proceedings having been on foot for a number of years. His Honour concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the full amount claimed, together with interest and costs.
See the full judgment here.
Today, in a decision of great significance for the law of trusts, the High Court dismissed an appeal from a decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal. John Kelly SC, Simon Shepherd and Adrian Maroya appeared for the successful respondents (who succeeded as appellants in the Court of Appeal). The High Court appeal concerned whether a successor trustee owes a fiduciary obligation to a former trustee in respect of the former trustee’s entitlement to be indemnified out of trust assets (or the commensurate beneficial interest in the trust assets that the former trustee retains) following replacement of the former trustee by the successor trustee.
The High Court (by majority) held that a successor trustee does not owe a fiduciary obligation to a former trustee in respect of the entitlement of the former trustee to indemnification out of the trust assets, or the commensurate beneficial interest that the former trustee has in the trust assets. The majority held that the explanation for that answer lies in the nature of a trustee’s entitlement to indemnification out of the trust assets being an entitlement to have the trust assets applied for the purpose of recouping expenditure or exonerating liability properly incurred by the trustee. Accordingly, the remedies of equitable compensation and account are not available to the former trustee against the third parties.
Read the full judgment here.
Please join us in congratulating Katrina Howard SC for being recognised in Chambers and Partners 2025 Asia Pacific Guide. Katrina continues to be the only female silk ranked in Band 1 of the Intellectual Property: The Bar – Australia listings.
See the rankings here.