At MCK Lawyers we strive to achieve commercial outcomes by attempting to resolve disputes by utilising the most appropriate alternative dispute resolution technique.
8 September 2011
The team at MCK succeed in the Supreme Court of Victoria in defending a corporate client and its director from a claim made by the company's fraudulent CEO. The case involved answering the question whether the company's conduct in cancelling shares was unfair and oppressive – ss232, 233 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) & whether the termination of MacLean's employment was unlawful
3 September 2019
We were instructed to appeal a decision from the Local Court that concerned damages for loss of use of a motor vehicle. Justice Basten upheld the appeal and found that when assessing damages, what is being compensated is temporary loss of use, and the value or the prestige of the damaged vehicle is not an essential characteristic of what is reasonably necessary in a replacement vehicle. Reasonableness, is an objective standard based on what need the plaintiff had for the vehicle.
NSW Court of Appeal - Insurance, Contract, Procedure and Evidence Sudesh Sharma v Insurance Australia Limited  NSWCA 55
24 March 2017
The appellant claimed damages for personal injuries allegedly suffered as a result of the respondent insurer's breach of contract, including breach of duty of good faith.
MCK Lawyers acted for the insurer.
The Court dismissed the appeal finding that the primary judge was entitled to take the view that the appellant lacked credibility in relation to the alleged injury. The insurer's duty of good faith extended to determining the claim within a reasonable period of time, and the insurer acted in accordance with its duty. The primary judge was correct in finding that in the usual course of things it is not usual for someone to suffer personal injury as a result of a breach of an insurance contract.
19 November 2014 (decision date)
A developer sued the manufacturer (our client) of thermo laminate kitchen panels for faulty manufacture, breach of the Fair Trading Act, breach of warranty and negligence. The Court held that the appellant (developer) failed to exclude several possible causes for the damage suffered and hence failed to discharge onus - doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable to the facts of the case