3-2-25 / Michael Hodge KC, Stewart Webster KC — Contract, Corporations
Michael Hodge KC, Stewart Webster KC (and Mr A Psaltis) appeared for the Applicant/First Cross-Respondent, instructed by Clayton Utz. This case concerned the plaintiff, Callide Energy Pty Ltd, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in relation to alleged rights arising under a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA). The Court considered several issues,…
DGR Global Ltd v P.T. Limited as trustee of the Armour Energy Security Trust [2025] QSC 8
30-1-25 / Michael Hodge KC, Sam McCarthy — Competition & Consumer, Corporations, Professional Negligence
Michael Hodge KC (with A O'Brien) represented the first and second defendants, instructed by Corrs Chambers Westgarth. Sam McCarthy (led by D O’Sullivan KC) represented the sixth defendant, instructed by Hall & Wilcox. This case concerned DGR’s application for leave to amend its further amended claim and second further amended…
Ultra Tune Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2025] FCAFC 1
28-1-25 / Michael Hodge KC — Appellate, Competition & Consumer
Michael Hodge KC (and Mr D Preston) appeared for the Appellant, instructed by Tisher Liner FC Law. This case concerns an appeal from an order that the appellant, Ultra Tune Australia Pty Ltd, pay fines of $1.5 million following its conviction on four charges of contempt. The court considered Ultra Tune’s…
22-1-25 / Scott McLeod KC, Matthew Wilkinson — Judicial Review & Administrative
Scott McLeod KC and Matthew Wilkinson appeared for the applicant/defendant, instructed by Ashurst Law. In November 2023, Travis Dawson commenced proceedings against the State of Queensland seeking relief under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010 including damages and aggravated damages for alleged reprisals. This case concerns an application by the State for…
DGR Global Ltd v P.T. Limited as trustee of the Armour Energy Security Trust [2025] QSC 5
15-1-25 / Sam McCarthy — Corporations
Sam McCarthy (led by Dominic O'Sullivan KC) represented the sixth defendant, instructed by Hall & Wilcox. This case concerned the defendants’ applications for security for costs. It was held that there was reason to believe that the corporate plaintiff would not be able to pay the defendants’ costs at some…
