Litigation

Builder Maxcon, financier Maxcap and mortgage broker ACMC are caught up in litigation over certificates of title underlying collapsed developer APH Holding’s $320 million Wellington Health precinct in Melbourne's Box Hill.

An appeals court has handed BHP a win in a dispute with Aquila Steel over the boundary between their neighbouring mining tenements, rejecting Aquila’s “fanciful” argument about the construction of a 58-year-old document.

A court has granted gold milling company Golden Mile leave to redraft its statement of claim in a dispute against Lakewood Mining over Lakewood’s alleged conversion of fresh waste rock. 

A Sydney developer has filed proceedings against the environment minister after a delegate found its proposal to build two towers in Parramatta would have “clearly unacceptable” impacts on views from Australia's oldest public building. 

A Hong Kong company has won its bid to claw back funds from the family of a deceased debtor who transferred a Sydney property to his wife as part of a purported separation agreement, with a court finding the transaction was intended to defraud creditors.

A creditor of developer The Gosford has filed an appeal in a dispute over a $185 million property in Sydney, after a judge found that $48 million owed by builder Shinetec to its parent company after the developer called on a letter of credit fell within the definition of ‘secured money’.

A judge has rejected amendments based on "buried" documents by developer Golden Eagle Property Group, in a protracted case by the receiver of parent company GGPG. 

The owners corporation of a Sydney apartment building can't run new arguments in a defects case determined last year, with a tribunal finding that while it likely had the power to reopen the case, it had not made an error warranting the move.

A head contractor has successfully challenged a Queensland Supreme Court decision, which tossed its case against a SOPA adjudication decision for a subcontractor on a building project in Southport.

A QCAT ruling not to review a rectification decision because more than six and a half years had passed since completion of construction has been set aside, with the tribunal finding on review that the time limit rule was misapplied.