Powered by Trust.Reviews
Jaswinder (Jas) Singh Sekhon, Author at Goldman Law
23 July 2026in

Statutory Credit Demands

STATUTORY DEMANDS — PART 5.4 CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 (CTH)

CREDITOR'S STATUTORY DEMANDS — RESPOND OR SET ASIDE WITHIN 21 DAYS

The statutory minimum debt ($4,000) and a set-aside application under s 459G must be filed AND served within the 21 days, with no extensions.

Book a Consultation
Estimate Your Costs
  • Experienced senior lawyers
  • Clear pricing guidance
  • National practice

UNDERSTANDING STATUTORY CREDIT DEMANDS

Your Guide

A creditor’s statutory demand is a prescribed demand under section 459E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) requiring a company to pay, secure or compound an eligible debt within 21 days. It is a powerful insolvency procedure, not merely an ordinary debt-collection letter. If the company neither complies nor files and serves a valid set-aside application within time, a presumption of insolvency can arise and support a winding-up application. The debt, demand, affidavit and service must therefore be checked immediately.

Jaswinder Says

A statutory demand is won or lost in the first days: verify the debt, service, supporting affidavit and available set-aside grounds immediately.

— Jaswinder (Jas) Sekhon · Director / Principal

How the Process Unfolds

FROM SERVICE TO WINDING-UP RISK

The procedure begins when a compliant statutory demand is served on the company at its registered office or by another valid method. The 21-day period runs strictly, and the company cannot rely on informal negotiations while allowing the filing deadline to expire.

A genuine dispute, offsetting claim or defect causing substantial injustice may support a set-aside application if raised properly and in time. Non-compliance creates a presumption of insolvency that a creditor may rely on in a later winding-up application. The stages below show the usual sequence, but urgent legal review is required as soon as the demand is received or before one is issued.

1

Demand prepared & served

Confirm the debt, statutory minimum, prescribed form, affidavit requirements and legally effective service.

1-5 days $1k-$4k
2

Company must act

Within 21 days (strict) the company must pay, secure or compound the debt, or file and serve a section 459G set-aside application. The 21-day deadline cannot be extended.

21 days strict $2k–$8k
3

Set-aside application

File evidence of a genuine dispute, offsetting claim or qualifying defect and complete service within the statutory period.

1–3 weeks $8k–$30k
4

Presumption of insolvency

If the demand is not complied with, the creditor may rely on the statutory presumption in a winding-up application.

After day 21 $5k–$20k
How we instruct, brief and work with barristers (counsel) — our litigation strategy.
5

Winding-up application

Prepare originating process, affidavits, publication and service, and address solvency, debt and discretionary issues.

4–10 weeks $15k–$60k+
How we instruct, brief and work with barristers (counsel) — our litigation strategy.
6

Court hearing & outcome

The court may dismiss, adjourn or make a winding-up order, with liquidator appointment and costs consequences.

1 day+ $20k–$100k+

HOW MUCH DOES A STATUTORY DEMAND COST TO SERVE OR SET ASIDE?

INDICATIVE CUMULATIVE COSTS AND TIME

The cost pathway depends on whether the demand prompts payment, is resolved by negotiation, proceeds to a set-aside application or leads to winding-up litigation. Because the 21-day deadline is strict, legal work is often compressed and urgent evidence may be required from directors, accountants and the creditor.

The charts are illustrative only and do not account for every solvency report, contested debt issue, substitution application or appeal. A creditor should assess the risk of a genuine dispute before issuing, and a company should act immediately rather than using the demand as a negotiation timetable.

Statutory demand costs should be compared with the debt, recoverability, solvency evidence, the prospects of a genuine dispute and the commercial consequences of a winding-up application. Excluding counsel costs.

Indicative planning ranges only. Figures exclude GST and disbursements unless stated and must be confirmed in a matter-specific written estimate.

Videos, Guides and Articles

INSIGHTS AND PRACTICAL GUIDANCE

Use these resources to understand the procedure, prepare more effectively and identify the questions that should be addressed before the next stage.

VIDEOS & GUIDES

Voluntary administration, liquidation and receivership

Who controls the company, what happens to claims and how creditor rights differ.

Watch video
Voluntary administration, liquidation and receivership

Who controls the company, what happens to claims and how creditor rights differ.

Watch video

MORE ARTICLES BY JASWINDER (JAS) SEKHON

Treat every statutory demand as a 21-day emergency.

  • Immediate demand and service review
  • Set-aside evidence and filing strategy
  • Creditor and winding-up representation
Speak to a Senior Lawyer
Request a Cost Roadmap
Calculate your 21-day deadline

Key terms defined

GLOSSARY — STATUTORY DEMAND TERMS

Statutory demand a formal demand under s 459E requiring a company to pay, secure or compound a debt of $4,000 or more within 21 days

Genuine dispute a real, not spurious, dispute about the existence or amount of the debt

Offsetting claim a genuine counterclaim, set-off or cross-demand reducing the amount payable

Presumption of
insolvencythe presumption arising from non-compliance, available for 3 months (s 459C)

Setting aside (s 459G) the court application to set the demand aside, filed and served within 21 days

Winding-up
application the creditor’s application to have the company wound up in insolvency.

Frequently Asked Questions

COMMON QUESTIONS

Practical answers about the process, deadlines, costs, evidence and likely next steps.
These responses are general information only and should be checked against the facts and applicable jurisdiction.

It is a formal demand under section 459E of the Corporations Act requiring a company to address an eligible debt within 21 days.

The current statutory minimum is $4,000, subject to legislative change.

The company has 21 days from effective service, and the set-aside application and supporting affidavit must also be served in time.

The statutory period is strictly enforced and the court cannot simply extend it after expiry.

A genuine dispute is a real, arguable dispute requiring further investigation, not a merely spurious or hypothetical assertion.

It is a genuine counterclaim, set-off or cross-demand that reduces the amount owed below the statutory minimum.

Yes where the statutory test is met, including a defect that causes substantial injustice.

Issuing a demand for a genuinely disputed debt creates serious risk and may lead to set-aside and adverse costs.

The company may be presumed insolvent and exposed to a winding-up application.

Solvency evidence may rebut the presumption in winding-up proceedings, but it does not cure a missed set-aside deadline.

Read More
23 July 2026in

Regulatory, Health & Administrative Disputes

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, LICENSING AND GOVERNMENT REVIEW

REGULATORY, HEALTH & ADMINISTRATIVE DISPUTES AHPRA, LICENSING & TRIBUNAL REVIEW LAWYERS

Most merits-review applications must be lodged within 28 days of the decision, and AHPRA can take immediate action against a practitioner’s registration before any hearing.

Book a Consultation
Estimate Your Costs
  • Experienced senior lawyers
  • Clear pricing guidance
  • National practice

UNDERSTANDING REGULATORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE DISPUTES

Your Guide

Regulatory and administrative disputes are challenges to decisions of regulators such as AHPRA and the National Boards, licensing bodies and government agencies, pursued through internal review, merits review in a tribunal, or judicial review in court.

The key distinction is between merits review, which remakes the decision on the facts and law, and judicial review, which examines legal error. Deadlines, stay applications and the evidentiary record require immediate attention.

Jaswinder Says

A regulatory response should aim to protect the immediate right to practise while building the factual and expert record needed for the final review.

— Jaswinder (Jas) Sekhon · Director / Principal

How the Process Unfolds

FROM NOTICE TO REVIEW AND FINAL DETERMINATION

The process commonly begins with a complaint, investigation notice, proposed condition, refusal, suspension or immediate-action decision. Early submissions can influence whether the matter resolves without a formal hearing and what evidence is accepted into the record.

Urgent stay or interim relief may be required to preserve registration, employment, income or business operations pending review. Merits review usually involves fresh consideration of the decision, while judicial review focuses on jurisdiction, procedure and legal error. The stages below provide a practical guide, but the statute, regulator, tribunal and applicable filing deadline must be checked for every matter.

1

Notice or investigation

Review the complaint, proposed action or decision, preserve records and identify the governing statute and deadline.

1-7 days $2k-$8k
2

Written submissions

Prepare factual, legal and expert material addressing risk, public protection, proportionality and the proposed outcome.

1-4 weeks $4k-$15k
3

Immediate action or conditions

Respond to suspension, conditions, show-cause action or refusal and seek a stay where available and necessary.

1-21 days $8k-$30k
4

Internal or merits review

File the review, prepare evidence and test whether the correct and preferable decision should be substituted.

2–6 months $15k–$80k+
How we instruct, brief and work with Barristers (Counsel) - Our litigation strategy.
5

Tribunal hearing

Witnesses and experts are examined and submissions address registration, conduct, sanction, licensing or administrative entitlement.

1-5 days+ $30k–$180k+
How we instruct, brief and work with Barristers (Counsel) - Our litigation strategy.
6

Court appeal or judicial review

Challenge legal error, jurisdiction, procedural fairness or appealable findings within the applicable statutory pathway.

2–12 months $40k–$250k+

How much does challenging a regulatory or AHPRA decision cost?

INDICATIVE CUMULATIVE COSTS AND TIME

The cost pathway differs between early submissions, NCAT merits review, federal Administrative Review Tribunal proceedings and court-based judicial review. Expert reports, urgent stay applications, multiple allegations and parallel employment or criminal issues can increase complexity and urgency.

The figures are indicative planning ranges only and must be checked against the regulator, statutory scheme and scope of evidence. Early strategy should focus on preserving practice rights, controlling the record and matching the legal forum to the actual error or outcome challenged.

Regulatory cost planning should account for the professional and commercial consequences of interim restrictions, the need for expert evidence, parallel proceedings and the value of an early, well-supported resolution.

Indicative planning ranges only. Figures exclude GST and disbursements unless stated and must be confirmed in a matter-specific written estimate.

Videos, Guides and Articles

INSIGHTS AND PRACTICAL GUIDANCE

Use these resources to understand the procedure, prepare more effectively and identify the questions that should be addressed before the next stage.

VIDEOS & GUIDES

Voluntary administration, liquidation and receivership

Who controls the company, what happens to claims and how creditor rights differ.

Watch video
Voluntary administration, liquidation and receivership

Who controls the company, what happens to claims and how creditor rights differ.

Watch video

MORE ARTICLES BY JASWINDER (JAS) SEKHON

Protect your registration, licence and professional future.

  • Urgent response and stay strategy
  • AHPRA, NCAT and ART representation
  • Expert evidence and judicial review planning
Speak to a Senior Lawyer
Request a Cost Roadmap

Key terms defined

GLOSSARY — REGULATORY & ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TERMS

AHPRA notification a complaint or concern lodged with the regulator about a health practitioner

Immediate action urgent suspension or conditions imposed to protect the public before a full hearing

Show-cause notice a notice requiring written submissions on why proposed action should not be taken

Conditions &
undertakings restrictions on practice imposed by, or agreed with, the regulator

Merits review a tribunal remaking the decision on the facts and law to reach the correct and preferable outcome

Judicial review a court examining whether the decision was lawfully made (ADJR Act / s 75(v)), not whether it was right.

Frequently Asked Questions

COMMON QUESTIONS

Practical answers about the process, deadlines, costs, evidence and likely next steps.
These responses are general information only and should be checked against the facts and applicable jurisdiction.

The regulator gathers information, assesses risk and may seek submissions, impose action or refer the matter for formal proceedings.

Often yes, but immediate action or conditions may restrict practice and may require urgent review or stay relief.

It is an interim protective measure, such as suspension or conditions, imposed before final disciplinary determination.

The tribunal reconsiders the facts, law and discretion to reach the correct or preferable decision.

A court examines whether the decision was lawfully made, including jurisdiction, procedure and legal error.

The deadline depends on the legislation and decision and may be short, so the decision notice should be reviewed immediately.

A stay may be available under the governing statute, subject to the relevant legal test.

Often in health, technical or professional matters, particularly where competence, risk or accepted practice is disputed.

Yes. Registration or licensing action may create separate employment, contractual, insurance and disclosure consequences.

Appeal rights usually focus on questions of law and are subject to a specific statutory pathway and deadline.

Read More
22 July 2026in

GL 3rd level info Capsule design

CREDITOR RIGHTS, RESTRUCTURING AND TRUST LITIGATION

Insolvency Asset & Trust Disputes

A plain-English guide to oppression claims, breaches of directors’ duties, company deadlock, and how share buy-outs and winding-up work in Australia.

Book a Consultation
Estimate Your Costs
  • Experienced senior lawyers
  • Clear pricing guidance
  • National practice

Understanding insolvency and trust disputes

Your Guide

A company is insolvent when it cannot pay debts as and when they fall due. Formal processes include voluntary administration, liquidation, restructuring and receivership, while personal insolvency is governed by bankruptcy law. Each process has strict gateways, priority rules and review rights.

Trust and asset disputes can involve the validity and administration of a trust, trustee duties, access to information, distributions, removal of trustees and claims that trust property should be available to creditors. The facts, governing instrument and statutory context must be analysed together.

Jaswinder Says

In insolvency work, timing and evidence determine leverage: a missed deadline or untested assumption can change the entire recovery position.

— Jaswinder (Jas) Sekhon · Director / Principal

How the Process Unfolds

FROM DEFAULT TO REVIEW AND DISTRIBUTION

Insolvency disputes usually begin with default, a demand, an appointment or a disagreement about control of assets or trust property. The appointment of an administrator, liquidator, receiver or trustee changes who controls the process and how claims must be advanced. Creditors often need to lodge proofs, preserve security rights and respond quickly to reports, meetings and proposed distributions.

Clawback, priority and trust claims may require detailed tracing, expert accounting evidence and court directions or substantive proceedings. The pathway below is a high-level guide and must be adapted to the
appointment, asset position, security structure and limitation periods.

1

Default or dispute arises

A payment default, demand, appointment, trustee decision or asset-control issue triggers urgent legal and commercial review.

1-7 days $2k-$8k
2

External administrator appointed

Control may pass to an administrator, liquidator, receiver or bankruptcy trustee, with statutory notices and reporting obligations.

1-4 weeks $3k-$12k
3

Proofs of debt & claims

Creditors lodge proofs, administrators adjudicate claims and security, priority and trust rights are analysed.

2-12 weeks $5k-$25k
4

Clawback or trust proceedings

Voidable transaction, insolvent trading, tracing, breach of trust and recovery claims are investigated and commenced where viable.

2-12 months $20k-$150k+
How we instruct, brief and work with barristers counsel: our winning litigation strategy
5

Priority, distribution or settlement

Competing claims are resolved, distributions are proposed and disputed entitlements may be negotiated or determined.

1-6 months $10k-$80k+
How we instruct, brief and work with barristers counsel: our winning litigation strategy
6

Review & appeal

Decisions on proofs, remuneration, directions, priority or substantive liability may be reviewed or appealed.

1-6 months $15k-$150k+

Indicative Insolvency And Trust Dispute Cost Meter

INDICATIVE CUMULATIVE COSTS AND TIME

The cost profile depends on whether the issue is confined to creditor review, requires an administrator’s determination, proceeds to winding-up or involves complex trust and clawback litigation. Forensic accounting, document reconstruction, multiple entities and disputed beneficial ownership can materially increase the work required.

The charts are illustrative and do not replace a written scope or estimate for the particular appointment and recovery strategy. A disciplined merits and recoverability assessment should be completed
before significant litigation expenditure is committed.

Recovery strategy should be tested against asset availability, security, priority, limitation periods, the administrator’s evidence and the likely net return after legal, expert and insolvency-administration costs.

All figures are indicative planning ranges only, exclude GST and disbursements unless stated, and must be verified in a written estimate for the specific matter.

Videos, Guides and Articles

INSIGHTS AND PRACTICAL GUIDANCE

Use these resources to understand the procedure, prepare more effectively and identify the questions that should be addressed before the next stage.
The titles and summaries below are editable placeholders for the final published video and article links.

VIDEOS & GUIDES

Voluntary administration, liquidation and receivership

Who controls the company, what happens to claims and how creditor rights differ.

Watch video
Voluntary administration, liquidation and receivership

Who controls the company, what happens to claims and how creditor rights differ.

Watch video

MORE ARTICLES BY JASWINDER (JAS) SEKHON

Test recovery, priority and control before value disappears.

  • Urgent creditor and director advice
  • Trust tracing and forensic recovery strategy
  • Court, administrator and stakeholder representation
Book a Consultation
Estimate Your Costs

Key terms defined

Loream Ipsum

Oppressionconduct of a company’s affairs that is unfairly prejudicial to one or more members.

Deadlocka stalemate  usually between 50/50 owners that stops the company being managed.

Derivative actiona claim brought in the company’s own name by a member when the directors will not act.

Buy-out ordera court order that one party purchase another’s shares at a set value.

Winding upthe formal closing of a company, with its assets sold and distributed.

Fiduciary dutythe obligation of a director to act loyally in the company’s interests.

Frequently Asked Questions

COMMON QUESTIONS

Practical answers about the process, deadlines, costs, evidence and likely next steps.
These responses are general information only and should be checked against the facts and applicable jurisdiction.

A company is insolvent when it cannot pay its debts as and when they become due and payable.

Administration explores rescue or a deed arrangement; liquidation winds up the company and distributes assets.

A creditor submits the prescribed proof and supporting evidence to the external administrator for adjudication.

Potentially, if the transaction is voidable under the statutory tests and the available defences do not apply.

Priority depends on security, statutory employee priorities, costs of administration and the applicable distribution rules.

A court may remove and replace a trustee where the trust’s proper administration requires it.

That depends on ownership, trust terms, trustee indemnity rights and whether the structure or transactions are successfully challenged.

Yes, wholly or partly, but the creditor may have review rights within a strict timeframe.

Directors may face liability if a company incurs debts while insolvent and the statutory elements are established.

Many are. Proof reviews, set-aside applications, voidable transaction claims and appeals all require prompt attention.Directors may face liability if a company incurs debts while insolvent and the statutory elements are established.

Read More
17 July 2026in

INSOLVENCY, TRUST, FINANCE & TAX DISPUTES new template

CREDITOR RIGHTS, RESTRUCTURING AND TRUST LITIGATION

Insolvency Asset & Trust Disputes

A plain-English guide to oppression claims, breaches of directors’ duties, company deadlock, and how share buy-outs and winding-up work in Australia.

Book a Consultation
Estimate Your Costs
  • Experienced senior lawyers
  • Clear pricing guidance
  • National practice

Understanding insolvency and trust disputes

Your Guide

A company is insolvent when it cannot pay debts as and when they fall due. Formal processes include voluntary administration, liquidation, restructuring and receivership, while personal insolvency is governed by bankruptcy law. Each process has strict gateways, priority rules and review rights.

Trust and asset disputes can involve the validity and administration of a trust, trustee duties, access to information, distributions, removal of trustees and claims that trust property should be available to creditors. The facts, governing instrument and statutory context must be analysed together.

Jaswinder Says

In insolvency work, timing and evidence determine leverage: a missed deadline or untested assumption can change the entire recovery position.

— Jaswinder (Jas) Sekhon · Director / Principal

How the Process Unfolds

FROM DEFAULT TO REVIEW AND DISTRIBUTION

Insolvency disputes usually begin with default, a demand, an appointment or a disagreement about control of assets or trust property. The appointment of an administrator, liquidator, receiver or trustee changes who controls the process and how claims must be advanced. Creditors often need to lodge proofs, preserve security rights and respond quickly to reports, meetings and proposed distributions.

Clawback, priority and trust claims may require detailed tracing, expert accounting evidence and court directions or substantive proceedings. The pathway below is a high-level guide and must be adapted to the
appointment, asset position, security structure and limitation periods.

1

Default or dispute arises

A payment default, demand, appointment, trustee decision or asset-control issue triggers urgent legal and commercial review.

1-7 days $2k-$8k
2

External administrator appointed

Control may pass to an administrator, liquidator, receiver or bankruptcy trustee, with statutory notices and reporting obligations.

1-4 weeks $3k-$12k
3

Proofs of debt & claims

Creditors lodge proofs, administrators adjudicate claims and security, priority and trust rights are analysed.

2-12 weeks $5k-$25k
4

Clawback or trust proceedings

Voidable transaction, insolvent trading, tracing, breach of trust and recovery claims are investigated and commenced where viable.

2-12 months $20k-$150k+
How we instruct, brief and work with barristers counsel: our winning litigation strategy
5

Priority, distribution or settlement

Competing claims are resolved, distributions are proposed and disputed entitlements may be negotiated or determined.

1-6 months $10k-$80k+
How we instruct, brief and work with barristers counsel: our winning litigation strategy
6

Review & appeal

Decisions on proofs, remuneration, directions, priority or substantive liability may be reviewed or appealed.

1-6 months $15k-$150k+

Indicative Insolvency And Trust Dispute Cost Meter

INDICATIVE CUMULATIVE COSTS AND TIME

The cost profile depends on whether the issue is confined to creditor review, requires an administrator’s determination, proceeds to winding-up or involves complex trust and clawback litigation. Forensic accounting, document reconstruction, multiple entities and disputed beneficial ownership can materially increase the work required.

The charts are illustrative and do not replace a written scope or estimate for the particular appointment and recovery strategy. A disciplined merits and recoverability assessment should be completed
before significant litigation expenditure is committed.

Recovery strategy should be tested against asset availability, security, priority, limitation periods, the administrator’s evidence and the likely net return after legal, expert and insolvency-administration costs.

All figures are indicative planning ranges only, exclude GST and disbursements unless stated, and must be verified in a written estimate for the specific matter.

Videos, Guides and Articles

INSIGHTS AND PRACTICAL GUIDANCE

Use these resources to understand the procedure, prepare more effectively and identify the questions that should be addressed before the next stage.
The titles and summaries below are editable placeholders for the final published video and article links.

VIDEOS & GUIDES

Voluntary administration, liquidation and receivership

Who controls the company, what happens to claims and how creditor rights differ.

Watch video
Voluntary administration, liquidation and receivership

Who controls the company, what happens to claims and how creditor rights differ.

Watch video

MORE ARTICLES BY JASWINDER (JAS) SEKHON

Test recovery, priority and control before value disappears.

  • Urgent creditor and director advice
  • Trust tracing and forensic recovery strategy
  • Court, administrator and stakeholder representation
Book a Consultation
Estimate Your Costs

Key terms defined

Loream Ipsum

Oppressionconduct of a company’s affairs that is unfairly prejudicial to one or more members.

Deadlocka stalemate  usually between 50/50 owners that stops the company being managed.

Derivative actiona claim brought in the company’s own name by a member when the directors will not act.

Buy-out ordera court order that one party purchase another’s shares at a set value.

Winding upthe formal closing of a company, with its assets sold and distributed.

Fiduciary dutythe obligation of a director to act loyally in the company’s interests.

Frequently Asked Questions

COMMON QUESTIONS

Practical answers about the process, deadlines, costs, evidence and likely next steps.
These responses are general information only and should be checked against the facts and applicable jurisdiction.

A company is insolvent when it cannot pay its debts as and when they become due and payable.

Administration explores rescue or a deed arrangement; liquidation winds up the company and distributes assets.

A creditor submits the prescribed proof and supporting evidence to the external administrator for adjudication.

Potentially, if the transaction is voidable under the statutory tests and the available defences do not apply.

Priority depends on security, statutory employee priorities, costs of administration and the applicable distribution rules.

A court may remove and replace a trustee where the trust’s proper administration requires it.

That depends on ownership, trust terms, trustee indemnity rights and whether the structure or transactions are successfully challenged.

Yes, wholly or partly, but the creditor may have review rights within a strict timeframe.

Directors may face liability if a company incurs debts while insolvent and the statutory elements are established.

Many are. Proof reviews, set-aside applications, voidable transaction claims and appeals all require prompt attention.Directors may face liability if a company incurs debts while insolvent and the statutory elements are established.

Read More
2 April 2026in

Commercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution Lawyers Australia | Sydney Business, Contract & Property Disputes

Commercial, Property & Assets Litigation Lawyers — Sydney & Australia

  • Assets
  • Securities & Shareholders
  • Urgent Court Action
  • Cross-Border Enforcement

Book Free Case Review

Court & Litigation I. Tips & Strategy In 30 Seconds

Senior lawyer insights — what litigation lawyers don't always tell their clients

Large Law-Firm Standards. Boutique Agility.

Senior-led litigation lawyers. Strategic commercial dispute resolution.

Goldman Law delivers world-class commercial litigation expertise with the speed, focus and responsiveness of a boutique litigation powerhouse — anchored by transparent fees, senior principal-level strategy engagement at every stage, and in-house ALSP (Alternative Legal Practice Services) capabilities developed over 10 years.

With more than a decade of exceptional results across Australian courts — and over thirty years of commercialisation and business leadership — we integrate advanced legal analysis with business and financial insight. This ensures your commercial realities drive every litigation decision.

Recognised as Complex Litigation Firm of the Year 2025, Most Trusted Complex Litigation Law Firm 2025 — Eastern Australia (Australian Enterprise Awards), and Best Multi-Practice Law Firm 2024.

Book a Free Consultation

No Obligation Commercial Disputes Triage Service

12 to 24 Hour Response Guaranteed

I guarantee a 12 to 24-hour turnaround via our secure
portal and a free review based on my 30 years of commercial
and top-level legal expertise.

Jaswinder (Jas) Sekhon - Managing Director, Goldman Law

How our Free Case Assessment Works - 3 STEPS

Trusted Senior Lawyers. Clear Strategy. Transparent Litigation Guidance.

1

Upload Your
Documents Securely

Submit your case files via our secure legal portal for a free senior lawyer review, typically within 12–24 hours.

2

SPEAK TO A
SENIOR LAWYER

Free quick call to discuss your matter — no documents required and no obligation.

3

Receive Your Strategy
& Cost Estimate

Litigation strategy and cost estimate provided if you wish to proceed — without obligation.

Enquire Now

Simply Securely Upload Your Documents

Then Book Your Free Lawyer "Strategy & Analysis" Call

  • Real Lawyers — Not AI
  • Outstanding Case Results
  • 24/7 Quick Response
  • Secure Confidential Portal

Why Businesses Choose Us for Complex Disputes

Commercial Focus · Preserving Advantages · Deep Knowledge

Our litigation team brings the discipline and capability of top international firms, combined with:

  • Personal senior partner attention at every stage — not delegated to associates;
  • Multi-disciplinary, top-tier expertise across commercial, property, securities, tax and insolvency;
  • Our own proprietary AI-assisted litigation technology from “GoldTech Vault” — managing disclosure, document review and workflow in-house without third-party outsourcing;
  • Proven results over more than 10 years in complex commercial property, securities and cross-border litigation throughout Australia;
  • A “new-age powerhouse” lane: speed, technology, confidentiality, control.

Book Confidential Strategy Call

Modern Tech Enabled Litigation Lawyers for Clients

Transparent · Predictable · Controlled · ALSP-Enabled "In-House"

  • Unique Triage means Early Case Assessment and Cost Mapping from Day 1;
  • Fixed-fee, capped or stage-phased billing structures;
  • Ongoing budget monitoring and reporting;
  • Strategic settlement plans to mitigate spend.

Business & Commercial Disputes — What Sets Us Apart

A Distinctive Approach is Our Proven Difference

In our experience, most large law firms operate as legal silos — clients needing multi-disciplinary expertise are passed between divisions. Goldman Law owns its 30 years of multi-disciplinary, top-tier expertise. Our founder and Litigation Director personally oversees and drives every litigation strategy. 

Our in-house GoldTech Vault litigation platform provides advanced, AI-assisted analytical capabilities that reduce work peaks and deliver strategic advantages rarely available to other firms — without outsourcing your confidential data to third parties.

Look for past results, strategy, knowledge, and capacity. You also need to know about the firm’s relationships with leading counsel (barristers).

Book a Free Consultation

Our Commercial Litigation Case Results

A selection of matters handled by Goldman Law's Litigation Team:

  • Secured an emergency freezing order within 24 hours, preserving diverted trust proceeds.
  • Managed a multi-party shareholder dispute, achieving an orderly buyout and settlement within six weeks.
  • Acted for a major lender in cross-border property enforcement spanning Australia, UAE, BVI and Switzerland.
  • Defended investors in securities misrepresentation proceedings.
  • Handled commercial contract and misleading/deceptive conduct claims and defences in the High Court, Supreme Court and Federal Court.
  • Implemented strategic settlement plans delivering significant cost mitigation for commercial clients.
  • Numerous commercial contract and tax litigation successful outcomes

Court & Litigation II. Tips & Strategy In 30 Seconds

Senior lawyer insights — what litigation lawyers don't always tell their clients

Typical Fees and Costs for commercial Litigation

Guidelines For NSW Matters 2026

This structure is a guide enabling clients to understand typical pricing & enabling fee predictability.
However the cost for your matter will very depending on your circumstances and matter complexity
This Cost guide excludes GST and disbursements.
Each matter is scoped under our Litigation Process Map, providing clear deliverables, timelines and budget checkpoints.

Contact us for your fee Estimate

Goldman Law Litigation Awards

Recognised for over 10 years

  • Complex Litigation Firm of the Year 2025
  • Most Trusted Complex Litigation Law Firm 2025 — Eastern Australia (Australian Enterprise Awards 2025)
  • APAC Insider Client Service Excellence Award 2025 Innovation in Legal Services
  • Best Multi-Practice Law Firm 2024 (Australian Enterprise Awards)
  • Complex Litigation and Medical Negligence Firm of the Year 2022
  • Health Law Distinction Award 2021
  • International Tax Law Firm of the Year — Australia 2025
  • AML & Financial Crime Defence Firm — Leading Recognition

Court & Litigation III. Tips & Strategy In a Few Minutes

Senior lawyer insights — what litigation lawyers don't always tell their clients

Subscribe for more videos

Commercial Litigation FAQs — NSW

Real client FAQs. Compiled over 10 years across Australia.

Do I need a lawyer for a commercial dispute in NSW?

In most commercial disputes above $20,000, experienced legal representation significantly improves outcomes. Early advice — even before proceedings commence — can prevent costly mistakes and often leads to faster, cheaper resolution.

What are the usual steps in the NSW litigation process?

Most commercial litigation in NSW follows 7–8 stages: pre-action negotiations → commencement → defence → discovery → mediation → pre-trial preparation → hearing → costs assessment. Goldman Law’s Litigation Process Map gives you a clear roadmap at the outset.

How long does it take to resolve a commercial dispute in Sydney?

Simple disputes can resolve in 3–6 months via mediation. Complex multi-party matters in the Supreme or Federal Court may take 12–36 months. We provide a realistic timeline estimate in our initial case assessment.

Costs depend on complexity and forum. Our fixed-fee menu (see above) gives you a clear indication from Stage 1. The general rule in NSW is that costs follow the event — the losing party pays a proportion of the winner’s costs — but this is discretionary.

Can we settle a dispute without going to court?

Yes. Most commercial disputes in NSW can and should be resolved through negotiation, mediation or conciliation. Goldman Law actively pursues early resolution where it makes commercial sense, saving time and preserving business relationships.

What should I do if I receive a Statement of Claim in Sydney?

Act immediately — you typically have 28 days to file a defence in NSW. Contact us as soon as possible. Late responses can result in default judgment against you.

Do you offer fixed-fee or no-win, no-fee commercial litigation?

We offer fixed-fee and capped-fee structures at every stage (see our fee menu above). No-win, no-fee arrangements are assessed on a case-by-case basis — contact us to discuss your specific matter.

Is my case handled personally by a partner?

Yes. Unlike large firms, Goldman Law’s Litigation Director Jaswinder (Jas) Sekhon is personally involved in strategy and oversight at every stage.We offer fixed-fee and capped-fee structures at every stage (see our fee menu above). No-win, no-fee arrangements are assessed on a case-by-case basis — contact us to discuss your specific matter.

Is ALSP secure?

Yes. Our GoldTech Vault is Goldman Law’s own proprietary secure digital platform — there is no third-party outsourcing of your confidential case data.

Do you act for small and medium enterprises (SMEs)?

Yes. We act for businesses of all sizes — from individual high-net-worth clients to SMEs and major commercial lenders. Our transparent fee structures are designed to make senior-quality litigation accessible to businesses that can’t justify big-firm fees.

Speak to a real human 1300 050 105

Read More
25 March 2026in

CORPORATE, SHAREHOLDER, DIRECTOR & PARTNERSHIP DISPUTES

Shareholder, Director & Partnership Dispute Lawyers in Sydney

When business relationships break down, delay can destroy value. Goldman & Co Lawyers acts in shareholder, director and partnership disputes involving control, governance, money, deadlock and exit arrangements across Sydney and NSW.

WATCH US & LISTEN TO LEGAL "SECRETS"

Legal Tips & Secrets Revealed! What Lawyers Don’t Tell Their Clients.

Play Video
Play Video

What Is a Shareholder Dispute?

Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text

A shareholder dispute arises when owners of a company disagree about control, money or direction — dividends withheld, information denied, directors preferring their own interests, or a majority squeezing out a minority. The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) gives shareholders powerful remedies, including the oppression remedy under sections 232–233, court-ordered buyouts and, in extreme cases, winding up.

BOOK A CONFIDENTIAL CASE ASSESSMENT

Shareholder, Director & Partnership Matters We Handle

Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text

We act for majority and minority shareholders, directors, partners and companies across Sydney in:

Minority oppression and unfair prejudice claims

Dividends, dilution, exclusion from management

Director duty disputes and misuse of company resources

Conflicts, related-party dealings, breach of duty claims

Deadlock between owners or decision-makers

50/50 shareholdings and board paralysis

Access to company books and records

Including applications under section 247A of the Corporations Act

Partnership breakdowns and exit disagreements

Dissolution, valuation and departure terms

Confidential information, restraint and diversion of opportunity issues

Protecting the business during and after a falling-out

Book Your Free Legal
Strategy Discussion!

How We Protect Your Position

Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text

We identify what needs immediate protection first: cashflow, records, control, staff, customers or reputation. We then advise on negotiation strategy, governance steps, buyout pathways, mediation and, where necessary, injunctions or court relief.

BOOK A CONFIDENTIAL CASE ASSESSMENT

Why Instruct Goldman & Co Lawyers

Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text

  • Senior-led advice on both commercial outcome and legal risk
  • Focus on protecting enterprise value during the dispute
  • Experience in urgent and highly sensitive business conflicts
  • Practical advice for negotiated separation as well as litigation

BOOK A CONFIDENTIAL CASE ASSESSMENT

WATCH US & LISTEN TO LEGAL "SECRETS"

Legal Tips & Secrets Revealed! What Lawyers Don’t Tell Their Clients.

Shareholder & Partnership Dispute FAQs

Compiled With Over 10Years of Data From Real Client Questions

What rights does a minority shareholder have?

More than most people expect. Depending on the company’s constitution, any shareholders agreement and the conduct complained of, minority owners may have remedies where conduct is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial — including court-ordered share buyouts at fair value under the Corporations Act oppression provisions.

Can a director be personally liable in a dispute?

Potentially yes. Personal exposure can arise through guarantees, statutory duties, breach of duty allegations or specific conduct. It should be assessed early — before positions are taken in correspondence that make exposure worse.

What if the business is deadlocked?

Deadlock disputes need immediate strategy so the business keeps operating while the parties explore negotiation, mediation, buyout or court-based relief. The longer a deadlock runs, the more value leaks to competitors, staff departures and stalled decisions.

Do all shareholder disputes end in court?

No. Many resolve through strategic negotiation or mediation once the legal position, leverage points and commercial realities are clearly identified. Court remains the backstop — and having a credible litigation pathway is usually what makes the negotiated outcome possible.

Book a Confidential
Strategy Call

Read More
22 January 2026in

test230126

Trusted Companies

Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit asper aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolor eos qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt aorro ruisea

Offices & Locations

Key Links

Key Links

Offices & Locations

Key Links

Links

*A global professional body for
practitioners who advise families on trusts,
wealth and inheritance planning.
Our principal is a fellow of STEP.
Goldman & Co Lawyers Pty Ltd is a
member firm of the NSW Law Society.
*Part of the Law Council of Australia. The
development and practice of family law and professional excellence for practitioners
*Family offices and family enterprises. FFI is the
leading association worldwide for family
enterprise professionals.
*Pacifica Congress is a leading multidisciplinary organisation of family law professionals
in the Pacific region.
*Funding for Family Law & Estates.
Flexible funding that empowers
your legal journey.
Terms of Business
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
© 2025, Goldman Law.
Media By Digital Business Solutions
A division of Goldman Softech Private Limited
Read More
3 August 2025in Uncategorised

ASSET PROTECTION MOVES INTO THE MARRIAGE? GAMBLING & WASTEFUL SPOUSES.

Introduction

How will the Court deal with your financial property dispute now that wastage, stealing, or other losses by one party will now not be added back to the balance sheet (asset pool of the parties).
Goldman Law provides planning tips to avoid property injustices in family law disputes.

What Was The Problem With Add Backs?

In Australian family law financial matters, “addbacks” refer to amounts of money or assets added back into the matrimonial asset pool during property settlements. Addbacks address financial conduct by one party that has unfairly reduced the available assets for distribution.

Common reasons for addbacks include:

  1. Wasteful Expenditure:
    Funds spent recklessly, extravagantly, or without mutual agreement after separation.
  1. Assets Hidden or Disposed of:
    Assets deliberately hidden, transferred, or sold at undervalue to diminish the pool available for division.
  1. Legal Costs Paid from Joint Assets:
    Legal fees paid from joint funds without mutual consent or inappropriately.
  1. Unilateral Use of Joint Assets:
    One party unilaterally accessing joint funds for personal use post-separation, significantly reducing the pool.
  1. Premature Distribution:
    Taking and using property or funds without agreement prior to a formal property settlement, thus altering the equity of distribution.

The Law Prior to the Shinohara Decision

The Australian courts consider addbacks carefully, following the principles established in the landmark case Stanford v Stanford[1], focusing primarily on whether an addback is just and equitable in the context of the overall settlement.

After Stanford v Stanford, In Bevan,[1] Bryant CJ and Thackray J said  “notional property”, which is sometimes “added back” to a list of assets to account for the unilateral disposal of assets, is unlikely to constitute “property of the parties to the marriage or either of them” and that such add backs form part of the forms part of the history of the marriage.

The Decision In Shinohara

The Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia has considered how the post-10 June 2025 amendments to the Family Law Act affect the inclusion of add backs in financial proceedings.

The Full Court rejected the father’s argument that the statutory amendments merely codified case law allowing such add backs. Instead, their Honours clarified:

  • Section 79(3) requires a court to identify and adjust only current property.
  • Add backs must not be placed in the balance sheet for division purposes.

The Court has said that the categories of “notional add-backs” and principles as to adding back property items or expenditure on a ‘dollar for dollar’ basis must not be added back into the balance sheet at all, but taken up as part of either a holistic weighting of contributions, or via s79(5) (i.e. formerly, s75(2)).

In the Shinohara case, the trial judge thus had erred in adding to the balance the “addbacks” and this was notional property, or property that did not exist.

The recent amendments to the Family Law Act were considered not to codify such an action but rather to look at “addbacks” in the context of the history of the relationship; and considerations as to “current and future” circumstances.

…“Section 79(5)(d) directs consideration as to whether a party has engaged in wastage of property or financial resources and its impact on the financial circumstances of the parties at the time of the assessment, being the date of trial,..”[1]

“So that it is clear, s 79 now directs that the categories identified in  Omancini pre-amendment that were notionally added back are to be considered in ensuring a just and equitable outcome, either by way of historical contributions, or by way of their relationship to and impact upon the current and future circumstances at the s 79(5) stage. “[2] 

What Has Changed ?

Following the recent amendments to the Family Law Act, notional addbacks cannot be “property: for distribution or orders between the parties. Add backs are and can be taken into account holistically within the broader range of just and equitable considerations that exist post 2024 amendments.

What Does This Mean For Clients?

Family lawyers debate about changing the “form” in the FCFOA to remove addbacks. Sadly, this misses the point as far as what clients now need to do to be protected from wasteful spouses. It is the consideration of such acts holistically to arrive at a just and equitable position between the parties. However, if a party wastes assets, AND there are insufficient assets for a just and equitable division of assets. This remains a serious issue in terms of what is then possible to reallocate in terms of the remaining assets for a fair split.

Client Strategies. You MUST Consider this!

Clients need to ensure that prior to financial proceedings or separation that they:

  1. Make sure that the opportunity to waste assets is minimized.
  2. The keeping of separate assets accounts and possibly separate liquid assets.
  3. Great care is taken in joint liabilities and things such as joint mortgages.

YOU must protect your assets whilst you are married otherwise it may be too late! Goldman Lawyers are experts in asset protection strategies and we welcome an initial strategy discussion.

It’s not just creditors that you have to worry about. Worry about the protection assets from a spendthrift, wasteful or gambling spouse.

Endnotes

[1] (2012) 247 CLR 108

[2] (2013) FLC 93-545 at [79]

[3] Shinhora ibid at para [124]

[4] Ibid at para [125]

Read More

Goldman Law

CONFIDENTIAL NO OBLIGATION HELP

INQUIRY OR DISCUSSION
WITH A SENIOR LAWYER

BOOK A CALL BACK




Book your legal strategy information meeting now with a senior lawyer

Fill in the form below to book a 30-minute no-obligation consulting session. 

I will reply within 24 hours.