Hammond Nguyen Turnbull is proud to have acted in a significant and long-awaited victory for champion harness racing driver Greg Bennett, who has been cleared to return to the sulky following a successful appeal before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). Our Special Counsel, Peter Morris, instructed Mr Murdoch of King's Counsel for the Applicant in proceedings that mark one of the most important integrity and licensing decisions in recent harness racing history. After a 14-year absence from the industry, seeking a fresh start, Mr Bennett applied to be licensed in Queensland. When the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (QRIC) refused his application, the matter proceeded to QCAT on appeal. The Tribunal undertook a detailed review of the history of the matter, the prior criminal proceedings, the integrity investigation process, and Mr Bennett’s character and conduct over many years. In a carefully reasoned decision, the Tribunal made several important findings: Mr Bennett had previously been found not guilty of criminal charges, including matters relating to the alleged production of his mobile phone. He was not charged with corruption. The only live issue relied upon to challenge his fitness to hold a licence was the historic “iPhone issue.” Evidence showed Mr Bennett had been consistent in his account over many years regarding the phone and his lack of knowledge of the broader scandal. No evidence was produced to the Tribunal contradicting his account. Witnesses gave uncontested evidence that he is mentally and physically fit, possesses the requisite skills and knowledge, and would be a positive contributor to the industry. Both NSW and Queensland authorities had already accepted his involvement in the industry as an owner, reflecting a level of ongoing trust. The Tribunal recognised his previously sound record, lengthy period of disqualification, and time away from the industry. Critically, the Tribunal also found that the process used to obtain evidence concerning Mr Bennett’s mobile phone had been so affected by irregularities that it led to “inexact proofs and indefinite testimony.” After considering the totality of the evidence, QCAT concluded that Mr Bennett is a fit and proper person to hold a Harness Racing Grade A Driver Licence. The Tribunal therefore: Set aside QRIC’s decision to refuse his application, and Substituted its own decision that Mr Bennett is eligible to be licensed. This ruling clears the way for one of the sport’s most accomplished drivers to return to competition after more than a decade in exile. Why This Decision Matters This decision is significant well beyond one individual. It reinforces that: Licensing decisions must be based on reliable and properly obtained evidence Historical allegations cannot be allowed to overshadow clear findings of good character and fitness without a proper evidentiary foundation Racing participants are entitled to procedural fairness, particularly where their livelihood and reputation are at stake For many in the industry, the outcome represents a long-overdue recognition that Mr Bennett’s continued exclusion was no longer justified. HNT – Experience in Racing and Integrity Matters Hammond Nguyen Turnbull regularly advises and represents trainers, drivers, owners, and other participants in: Stewards’ inquiries Integrity and rule breach proceedings Licensing disputes Appeals and tribunal reviews These matters are complex, highly specialised, and often career-defining. Early, strategic legal advice can make a critical difference to the outcome.  If you are facing a racing integrity investigation or licensing issue, our team has the experience to guide you through the process and protect your interests.

When a loved one passes away, the task of managing their final affairs can feel overwhelming. Dealing with banks, real estate, and other assets often requires a formal legal authority before anything can be done. This is where the Supreme Court of NSW steps in to issue a grant that empowers someone to manage the deceased's estate. The two most common types of grants are a Grant of Probate and a Grant of Letters of Administration . The one you need depends entirely on one crucial factor: whether the deceased left a valid will. Grant of Probate: When There Is a Will A Grant of Probate is a formal document issued by the Court that certifies a deceased person's will is valid and gives the person named as the executor the legal authority to carry out the instructions in that will. Who applies? The executor(s) named in the deceased’s last valid will. What is its purpose? It confirms the executor’s role and allows them to manage the estate. With this grant, the executor can: Access and close bank accounts. Sell or transfer property, such as the family home. Claim life insurance and superannuation benefits. Pay the deceased’s debts. Distribute the remaining assets to the beneficiaries as specified in the will. In essence, Probate is the legal process of bringing a will to life and giving the executor the green light to follow the deceased's final wishes. Letters of Administration: When There Is No Will When a person dies without a valid will or no will at all, they are said to have died "intestate." In this situation, there is no will to follow and no named executor to take charge. This is where a Grant of Letters of Administration is needed. Who applies? Since there's no executor, the law sets out an order of priority for who is eligible to apply to the Court to manage the estate. This is usually the deceased’s closest next of kin, starting with their spouse or de facto partner, then children, parents, and so on. The person appointed by the Court is called an administrator . What is its purpose? The grant gives the administrator the same powers as an executor—to collect assets and pay debts. However, the crucial difference lies in the distribution of the estate. Instead of following the instructions of a will, the administrator must distribute the assets according to a strict formula set out in NSW law (the Succession Act 2006 ). This is known as the "rules of intestacy." Letters of Administration can also be required if there is a will, but the named executor is deceased, unwilling, or unable to act. Is a Grant Always Necessary? For very small estates, a formal grant may not be needed. If the deceased only had a small amount of money in a bank account, the bank might agree to release the funds to the next of kin without a grant. However, this is at the discretion of the financial institution. If the estate involves real estate of any kind, a grant will almost certainly be required to transfer the title.  The best way to ensure your assets are distributed according to your wishes and to simplify the process for your loved ones is to have a legally valid and up-to-date will. This allows you to choose your own executor and decide exactly who gets what, avoiding the strict, impersonal formula of intestacy law.

Artificial intelligence is no longer science fiction; it's a fundamental part of the modern business toolkit. From automating client communications and analysing contracts to making hiring decisions and setting prices, AI is driving unprecedented efficiency and innovation. But as we integrate these powerful tools deeper into our operations, we venture into a new and complex legal and ethical landscape. For businesses in Australia, harnessing the power of AI means looking beyond the technological benefits and confronting the critical legal questions it raises. Are you prepared for the risks? Key Legal Battlegrounds for AI in Business The introduction of AI challenges long-standing legal principles. Our current laws were written for human actors, and applying them to autonomous, learning systems creates significant gray areas. Contracts and Liability: Who's Responsible When the AI Gets It Wrong? Imagine an AI system, tasked with procurement, negotiates and executes a contract for faulty goods. Who is liable for the breach? The business that deployed the AI? The AI's developer? The issue strikes at the heart of contract law, which is built on human concepts like intent and capacity. Furthermore, the "black box" problem—where an AI's decision-making process is too complex for even its creators to fully understand—makes it incredibly difficult to determine fault when something goes wrong. If an AI-driven financial advisor gives negligent advice, proving the 'how' and 'why' becomes a major legal hurdle. Intellectual Property: Can an AI Be an Inventor? Generative AI can now create art, write code, and even design new products. This raises a fundamental IP question: who owns AI-generated work? Under current Australian law, copyright and patent ownership are tied to human authorship or invention. A landmark Federal Court case ( Thaler v Commissioner of Patents ) confirmed that an AI cannot be named as an "inventor" on a patent application. This means businesses must have clear policies on how AI is used in the creative and inventive process to ensure they can protect the resulting intellectual property. Data Privacy: The Fuel for the AI Engine AI systems are fuelled by data—often, vast amounts of it. This directly engages your responsibilities under Australia’s Privacy Act 1988 . Businesses must consider: Lawful Collection: Are you transparently informing individuals that their personal information will be used to train or be processed by AI systems? Data Security: How are you protecting the massive datasets used by your AI from cyber threats and breaches? Automated Decisions: If your AI makes a significant decision about an individual (e.g., approves or denies a credit application), can you explain the basis of that decision as required by privacy principles? The Ethical Tightrope: Beyond Legal Compliance Staying on the right side of the law is just the starting point. The ethical implications of AI usage can carry enormous reputational risk and impact your social license to operate. Bias and Discrimination An AI is only as good as the data it's trained on. If historical data reflects societal biases (e.g., hiring practices that favoured one demographic over another), the AI will learn and perpetuate those biases, often at scale. Using a biased AI for recruitment or performance management could lead to discriminatory outcomes that are not only unethical but also a breach of anti-discrimination laws. Transparency and Explainability When a customer is denied a loan or a candidate is rejected for a job by an AI, they deserve to know why. Businesses have an ethical obligation to strive for "explainable AI." A lack of transparency can erode trust with customers, employees, and the public, leading to a perception that your business uses arbitrary or unfair automated processes. Accountability and Human Oversight Ultimately, an AI is a tool. A business cannot delegate its corporate responsibility to an algorithm. It's crucial to establish clear governance frameworks that define who is accountable for the AI's deployment and outcomes. Meaningful human oversight must be maintained to catch errors, override poor decisions, and ensure the technology operates in alignment with your company 's values. Charting a Course: Practical Steps for Your Business The legal and ethical landscape for AI is evolving rapidly. To navigate it successfully, businesses should be proactive: Conduct an AI Audit: Identify all the AI systems used in your business and assess them for legal compliance, data privacy risks, and potential bias. Develop an AI Governance Policy: Create clear internal rules for the ethical development, procurement, and deployment of AI. Define roles and responsibilities for oversight. Prioritise Transparency: Be open with your stakeholders about how and where you use AI. Update your privacy policies and terms of service accordingly. Stay Informed: Keep up-to-date with guidance from regulatory bodies and emerging case law concerning AI in Australia. Seek Expert Advice: Before deploying a new AI system, consult with legal professionals who understand the intersection of technology, commercial law, and privacy.  AI offers a competitive edge that is too significant to ignore. However, embracing it without a clear-eyed view of the legal and ethical risks is a gamble. The businesses that thrive in the algorithmic age will be those that innovate responsibly, building a foundation of trust and accountability around their technology.

As family lawyers, we understand that court deci sions can have a profound impact on families, and sometimes, a party may feel that the court has made an error in their case. In such situations, an appeal may be an option. However, it's crucial to understand the legal grounds for appeal and the potential risks and costs involved. An appeal is not simply a rehearing of the case. It's a review of the lower court's decision by a higher court to determine whether the decision was legally sound. Generally, appeals are only allowed on questions of law, not on questions of fact. This means that the appeal court will not usually reconsider the evidence presented in the original trial but will focus on whether the lower court applied the law correctly. There are strict time limits for filing an appeal, and the process can be complex and expensive. As lawyers, we advise clients on the merits of their appeal, the likelihood of success, and the potential costs and delays involved. We also assist in preparing the necessary legal documents and representing clients in the appeal court. Appealing a family law decision is a significant undertaking that should not be taken lightly. It's crucial to seek legal advice to understand your options and make an informed decision about whether to proceed.

Whether you're a first-home buyer eagerly stepping onto the property ladder, a parent helping your child secure their first mortgage, or a business owner financing a new venture, securing a loan is a significant financial milestone. The paperwork can be overwhelming—a dense stack of documents filled with complex legal terms and clauses. It’s tempting to simply trust the lender, sign where indicated, and get on with it. However, these documents are legally binding contracts that can have profound and lasting consequences for your financial future. This is where Independent Legal Advice (ILA) becomes not just a recommendation, but an essential safeguard. At Hammond Nguyen Turnbull, we believe that being fully informed is the best way to protect your interests. Let's explore what ILA is and why it's a non-negotiable step in the loan process. What Exactly is "Independent" Legal Advice? Independent Legal Advice is guidance provided by a solicitor who has no connection whatsoever to the lender (the bank or financial institution). Their duty is solely to you—the borrower or, very commonly, the guarantor. This independence is crucial. It ensures the advice you receive is unbiased, impartial, and focused exclusively on protecting your rights and ensuring you understand the full scope of your commitment. The solicitor isn't there to give financial advice on whether the loan is a "good deal," but to explain the legal nature and practical effect of the documents you are about to sign. Why is ILA So Important? Lenders often make ILA a mandatory condition before they will advance funds, especially when a third-party guarantor is involved. Here’s why this step is so critical: Translating the Jargon: Loan and mortgage documents are notoriously difficult to read. A solicitor will cut through the legal jargon and explain the key terms, such as interest rates, repayment schedules, fees, and penalty clauses, in plain English. Understanding Your Full Obligations: Do you know what happens if you miss a payment? Or if the primary borrower defaults on the loan you've guaranteed? ILA clarifies the full extent of your liabilities and the "worst-case scenarios," ensuring there are no surprises down the track. Preventing Undue Influence or Pressure: A key role of ILA, particularly for guarantors, is to ensure you are signing the documents of your own free will. The solicitor needs to be satisfied that you haven't been pressured or unduly influenced by the borrower or another party. This protects you and ensures the enforceability of the guarantee for the lender. Protecting Your Assets: The legal advice will clearly identify which of your assets are being used as security for the loan. For a guarantor, this often means your family home could be at risk if the borrower defaults. Understanding this risk is fundamental. What Does an ILA Session with a Solicitor Involve? The process is straightforward and designed to be as clear and helpful as possible. Document Review: First, you will provide your solicitor with the complete set of loan, mortgage, and/or guarantee documents received from the lender. The Private Meeting: You will meet with your solicitor. Critically, if you are a guarantor, the primary borrower will not be present at this meeting. This is to ensure you can speak freely and that the advice remains confidential and independent. Detailed Explanation: Your solicitor will walk you through the documents, explaining: The nature of the transaction and the amount being borrowed. The key obligations, risks, and responsibilities you are undertaking. The specific consequences of a default. The circumstances under which the guarantee can be called upon. Your Questions Answered: This is your dedicated time to ask any questions you have, no matter how simple they may seem. The goal is for you to leave the meeting with complete clarity and confidence in your understanding. The Solicitor's Certificate: Once the solicitor is satisfied that you fully comprehend the legal ramifications of the documents, they will sign a formal "Solicitor's Certificate" or "Certificate of Independent Legal Advice." This certificate is provided to the lender as proof that you have received the required advice. It confirms you understand the commitment you are making. Who Needs Independent Legal Advice? While beneficial for all borrowers, ILA is especially critical for: Guarantors: This is the most common scenario. Parents, family members, or friends guaranteeing a loan are placing their own assets on the line. ILA is vital to ensure they understand this significant risk. Joint Borrowers with Unequal Benefit: If you are buying a property with a partner but are contributing unequally or one partner is taking on a greater share of the debt. Spouses Providing Security for Business Loans: When a family home is used as security for one partner's business venture. Borrowers in Complex Structures: This includes loans involving companies, trusts, or a Self-Managed Super Fund (SMSF). A Small Investment for Significant Peace of Mind Signing a loan or guarantee document is one of the most significant financial decisions you will ever make. The cost of obtaining Independent Legal Advice is minor compared to the potential financial and emotional cost of not fully understanding your obligations. It’s a crucial investment in your long-term security and peace of mind. Before you put pen to paper, ensure you are making an informed decision.  If you have been asked to sign loan documents or act as a guarantor, contact the experienced team at Hammond Nguyen Turnbull today. We are here to provide clear, independent, and practical legal advice to protect your interests.

Terminating an employee’s contract is one of the most challenging and legally sensitive actions a business owner or manager will ever have to take. While it’s a necessary part of managing a workforce, the decision to dismiss an employee cannot be taken lightly. In New South Wales, the process is governed by a strict legal framework designed to protect employees from unfair treatment. It’s not enough to simply have a reason for dismissal; you must also follow a fair and lawful process . Getting it wrong—even during a probationary period—can expose your business to costly legal claims, including unfair dismissal, general protections, or breach of contract. This guide will outline when you can lawfully terminate an employee in NSW and the critical steps you must follow to protect your business. A Special Case: Termination During a Probationary Period Many employers believe a probationary period gives them a "get out of jail free" card, allowing them to dismiss an employee for any reason without legal risk. This is a dangerous misconception. The maximum probation period under the Fair Work Act 2009 is: 12 months for a small business (fewer than 15 employees). 6 months for all other businesses. This period is known as the minimum employment period under the Act. An employee cannot file an unfair dismissal claim until they have completed this minimum employment period. While this provides a level of protection, it does not make an employer immune to other serious legal claims. The Hidden Risks of Probationary Terminations: Even if an employee can't claim unfair dismissal, they can still take legal action if you terminate them for a prohibited reason. The biggest risk is a general protections claim , where an employee alleges they were dismissed for: Exercising a workplace right (e.g., making a complaint about safety, asking about their pay or entitlements). A discriminatory reason (e.g., due to their race, sex, age, pregnancy, or disability). Being temporarily absent due to illness or injury. Furthermore, you must still abide by the employment contract, which includes providing the required notice period . Failing to do so can lead to a breach of contract claim. Best Practice: Think of probation not as a risk-free trial, but as a period for actively managing performance. If you do decide to terminate, ensure you have a valid, documented, performance-related reason and are not acting for a prohibited reason. 1. Termination with Notice (For Performance or Misconduct) This is the most common method of termination. It is used in situations involving consistent poor performance, or misconduct that is not severe enough to warrant instant dismissal. a) The Valid Reason The reason must be sound, defensible, and well-documented. Examples include: Poor Performance: The employee has consistently failed to meet the inherent requirements of their role, despite being given clear warnings and an opportunity to improve. Misconduct: The employee has breached their employment contract or a workplace policy (e.g., inappropriate use of company resources, breaches of safety rules). b) The Fair Process (Procedural Fairness) To terminate for poor performance or misconduct, you must demonstrate you have acted fairly. This involves: Issuing Warnings: For poor performance, you should have records of meetings, performance improvement plans (PIPs), and clear written warnings outlining the consequences of failing to improve. Conducting an Investigation: For misconduct, investigate the allegations thoroughly and impartially. Notifying the Employee: Inform the employee of the specific reasons for the potential termination in clear, unambiguous language. Providing a Chance to Respond: This is a critical step. You must give the employee a genuine opportunity to respond to the reasons and have their response considered before you make a final decision. Allowing a Support Person: You must permit the employee to have a support person present at any formal meetings discussing their potential dismissal. You must then provide the employee with the minimum period of written notice as required by the National Employment Standards (NES) or their contract, whichever is greater. You can also choose to pay them in lieu of this notice period. 2. Summary Dismissal (Instant Dismissal) Summary dismissal is termination without notice. This is reserved only for cases of serious misconduct , which is conduct so severe that it destroys the employment relationship. The Fair Work Regulations 2009 define serious misconduct to include actions like: Theft, fraud, or assault Being intoxicated at work Refusing to carry out a lawful and reasonable instruction that is central to the work A Word of Warning: Summary dismissal is a high-risk strategy. The burden of proof is on you, the employer, to show the misconduct occurred and was serious enough to justify instant dismissal. Even in these cases, it is highly advisable to conduct a swift investigation and give the employee a chance to explain themselves before acting. 3. Genuine Redundancy A redundancy occurs when you terminate an employee because their job is no longer required to be done by anyone. This is about the role , not the person or their performance. For a redundancy to be "genuine" under the Fair Work Act , three conditions must be met: The employer no longer requires the person’s job to be performed by anyone due to changes in operational requirements. The employer has complied with any consultation obligations in a relevant Modern Award or Enterprise Agreement. This usually involves discussing the proposed changes with affected employees. It was not reasonable in the circumstances to redeploy the employee to another role within your business or an associated entity. If these conditions are met, the employee will not be able to make an unfair dismissal claim. You must still provide notice and, in most cases, pay redundancy severance based on their years of service. The High Cost of Getting It Wrong Failing to follow a fair and lawful process can lead to significant legal claims: Unfair Dismissal: A claim that the dismissal was "harsh, unjust, or unreasonable." A flawed process is the most common reason for a successful claim. General Protections Claim: An allegation that you dismissed an employee for a prohibited reason, such as exercising a workplace right or on discriminatory grounds. These claims carry the risk of uncapped damages. Breach of Contract: If you fail to follow a process mandated by the employment contract. Final Thoughts Termination is a legal minefield where process is paramount. Always ensure you have a clear, documented reason and have followed the steps of procedural fairness. Taking the time to manage the process correctly is a small investment compared to the time and cost of defending a legal claim.

Grandparents play a vital role in the lives of their grandchildren, offering love, support, and a sense of belonging. However, in the context of family breakdown, grandparents' rights to maintain relationships with their grandchildren can become complex and contentious. As family lawyers, we often advise grandparents on their legal rights and options for staying connected with their grandchildren, particularly when faced with resistance from parents or other family members. In Australian family law, the best interests of the child are paramount. While there's no automatic right for grandparents to have contact with their grandchildren, the law recognises the importance of maintaining these relationships where it's in the child's best interests. Grandparents can apply to the Family Court for orders regarding spending time with or communicating with their grandchildren. The Court considers various factors when determining what's in the child's best interests, including the nature of the grandparent-child relationship, the child's views (depending on their age and maturity), and any risk of harm to the child. Grandparents may need to provide evidence of a close and meaningful relationship with the child and demonstrate their ability to provide a safe and supportive environment. As family lawyers, we assist grandparents in navigating the legal process, from preparing applications to representing them in Court. This involves gathering evidence, negotiating with parents and other parties, and presenting arguments to the Court. We also advise on alternative dispute resolution options, such as mediation, which can be a less adversarial and more cost-effective way to resolve disputes.  While the legal process can be challenging, we’re committed to helping grandparents assert their rights and maintain their precious bonds with their grandchildren. By providing clear legal advice and compassionate support, we strive to achieve outcomes that benefit the child and preserve the invaluable role of grandparents in their lives.

It’s a classic neighbourhood dispute: a neighbour knocks on your door, complaining that your beautiful trees are blocking their prized view and demanding you cut them down. If you refuse, they might threaten legal action. So, what are your rights, and can they actually force you? In New South Wales, these conflicts are governed by the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) (the "Trees Act"). While a neighbour can't simply force you to remove a tree, they can apply to the NSW Land and Environment Court for an order. However, they have a high bar to clear, and as a recent case handled by our firm shows, a strong defence can protect your property and your privacy. Last week, Andrew Pacini of Hammond Nguyen Turnbull successfully defended a client whose neighbour was demanding the removal of a row of screening trees. We won the case by demonstrating two key points: first, that the Tribunal had no power to make the order because the trees weren't actually on our client's land, and second, that the neighbour's view was not severely obstructed anyway. The Process: What a Neighbour Must Prove When a neighbour makes a claim about trees blocking a view, it's typically because they believe the trees form a "high hedge" that is causing a "severe obstruction." For their application to the Tribunal to succeed, they must prove several key things: The Trees Are on Your Land: The Trees Act only applies to trees that are situated " wholly or principally " on the land of the person the claim is brought against. This is a crucial first step. They Constitute a Hedge: The trees must consist of two or more trees that are planted closely together to form a continuous screen. There is a "Severe" Obstruction: This is a very high standard. It's not enough for the trees to partially interrupt a view. The applicant must convince the Tribunal that the obstruction is severe . A View from a Dwelling is Obstructed: The alleged view obstruction must be from a dwelling on the applicant's land, not just from the backyard or garden. How to Defend a Claim: A Case Study In our recent case, the neighbour's claim failed before it even got off the ground. A careful look at the property survey revealed a critical fact: the trees in question were growing on a narrow strip of land—a drainage reserve—owned by the local Council. 1. Challenge the Tribunal's Jurisdiction Because the trees were not "wholly or principally" on our client's land, we successfully argued that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction (i.e., no legal power) to make an order against our client. The neighbour's claim was directed at the wrong party; if they wanted to pursue the matter, they would have to take it up with the Council, who had already inspected the trees and decided to take no action. Key Takeaway: Always check your property boundaries. The location of the tree is the most important first question. 2. Argue the Merits of the Case Even if the trees had been on our client's land, the neighbour's claim was weak. We successfully argued: The Obstruction Wasn't "Severe": The neighbour’s own photos showed they still had extensive river views from their home. The trees only partially intersected the line of sight and did not come close to causing a "severe obstruction". In fact, our client had previously removed several large, mature trees, significantly improving the view compared to what it was when the neighbours first purchased their property. Privacy Outweighs the View: The Tribunal must balance the neighbour's interest in a view against the tree owner's interest in keeping the trees. Our client's trees formed an essential privacy screen, shielding their home, pool, and entertaining areas from being directly overlooked by several elevated neighbouring properties. We argued that removing them would have a devastating impact on our client's privacy and amenity, which far outweighed the minor impact on the neighbour's view. What to Do if You Receive a Claim If a neighbour has threatened or commenced legal action over your trees, don't panic. Here are some simple first steps: Confirm Your Boundaries: Get a copy of your property survey to confirm exactly where the trees are located. We can assist you with this. Gather Evidence: Take photos and videos from the neighbour's likely point of view to assess the extent of any view obstruction. Document the history of the trees and any maintenance you've performed. Don't Engage in Hostility: While these disputes can be emotional, it's important to remain calm. In our case, the neighbour's harassing behaviour towards our client did them no favours. Seek Legal Advice: A lawyer experienced in property law can assess the strength of the claim against you and formulate a clear defence strategy. Tree disputes can be stressful, but you are not powerless. Understanding the law and your rights is the first step to protecting your property.  If you're facing a tree dispute with a neighbour, contact the expert team at Hammond Nguyen Turnbull for advice and representation.

Starting a company with business partners is often built on a foundation of shared vision and trust. In the early days, everyone is pulling in the same direction. But as a business matures, priorities can diverge, personalities can clash, and what once seemed like a perfect partnership can start to feel like a battle for control. Disputes between shareholders are one of the most common and damaging issues a private company can face. They can paralyse decision-making, destroy value, and turn trusted colleagues into bitter adversaries. Understanding the common battlegrounds and the legal pathways to resolution is essential for protecting your investment and your rights. Common Battlegrounds: Where Disputes Ignite Shareholder conflicts typically arise in a few key areas. Disputes Over Control and Company Direction This is the classic "vision" conflict. One shareholder might want to pursue aggressive, high-risk growth and expansion, while another prefers a conservative approach, focusing on steady profitability. This can lead to deadlock on major decisions, especially in a 50/50 ownership structure where neither party has a deciding vote. The Dividend Dilemma: Reinvest vs. Distribute Cash is the lifeblood of a business, and disagreements over what to do with profits are frequent. For example: An active shareholder working in the business may prefer to reinvest all profits back into the company to fuel growth. A passive shareholder (or one nearing retirement) may rely on that income and want the company to distribute profits as dividends. This conflict places the financial goals of the shareholders in direct opposition. Oppression of Minority Shareholders This is one of the most serious and legally complex areas of conflict. It occurs when majority shareholders use their voting power to run the company in a way that is unfairly prejudicial to the minority shareholders. Common examples of oppressive conduct include: Excluding minority shareholders from management roles they previously held. Paying excessive salaries and bonuses to themselves (the majority) to reduce the profits available for dividends for everyone. Diverting business opportunities or clients to other companies they control. Refusing to provide access to financial information. Blocking the minority shareholder from selling their shares at a fair market value. Pathways to Resolution: From Negotiation to Court Action If you find yourself in a shareholder dispute, a structured approach is critical. Step 1: Check the Shareholders Agreement A well-drafted Shareholders Agreement is your first and most important line of defence. This document is the "rulebook" for the company and its owners. It should contain clauses outlining: How key decisions are made. A process for valuing shares. A formal dispute resolution procedure (e.g., requiring mediation before litigation). How shares are to be sold / transferred. Before you do anything else, review this agreement with a lawyer. Step 2: Negotiation and Mediation The most commercial and cost-effective solution is always a negotiated settlement. Formal or informal discussions, aimed at finding a business-like solution, should be your first step. If direct negotiation fails, mediation is an excellent option. A neutral third-party mediator can help facilitate communication and guide the parties toward a mutually acceptable outcome, such as a structured buyout or a revised management plan. Step 3: Your Legal Rights Under the Corporations Act 2001 When negotiation and mediation fail, the Corporations Act 2001 provides powerful remedies. The two most common actions are: The Oppression Remedy (Section 232): This is the primary tool for minority shareholders. If a court finds that the company's affairs are being conducted in a manner that is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial, it has broad powers to make orders. The most common order is for the majority to buy the minority shareholder's shares at a fair value , determined by an independent expert. Winding Up the Company (Section 461): This is the "nuclear option." A court can order the company to be wound up (liquidated) if it is "just and equitable" to do so. This is typically reserved for cases of complete deadlock or a total breakdown of mutual trust and confidence, where the company can no longer function as intended. Protect Your Investment A dispute with your business partners can feel personal and overwhelming. The key is to act strategically, not emotionally. By understanding your rights and the legal pathways available, you can move to protect your investment and fight for a fair outcome.  If you are involved in a shareholder dispute, don't wait for the situation to deteriorate. Contact us for expert legal advice on your rights and strategic options.