Brown Wright Stein Lawyers’ dispute resolution team provides strategic advice in both protecting and enhancing the interests of our clients in the resolution of complex disputes. Our team has an excellent track record in advising some of Australia’s largest retailers, publicly listed companies, professional partnerships, SMEs and owner-managed businesses across a broad range of legal subject matters.
Our lawyers are highly qualified in commercial litigation with proven experience in all major courts and tribunals. We offer expertise in every manner of alternative dispute resolution including mediation and arbitration and when disputes do escalate, our clients are secure in knowing that our litigators have the knowledge and “know how” to tackle any challenge that may emerge.
The client service philosophy in which we operate involves the development of robust relationships with our clients allowing us to gain a thorough understanding of their business and of their commercial imperatives. We are then best placed to minimise our clients’ exposure to risk and offer solutions to clients involved in disputes that are practical, competitive and commercially focused. This is a hallmark of our approach.
Our dispute resolution team, headed by Snezana Vojvodic, are specialists in:
- Mediations, arbitrations and other forms of alternative dispute resolution
- Partnership and shareholder disputes
- Corporations Act litigation
- Contract disputes
- Banking and Finance litigation
- Trade practices litigation
- Debt recovery and problems with competitors
- Disputes with revenue authorities including the ATO and Office of State Revenue
- Intellectual Property litigation
- Estate Planning litigation
- Negligence claims
- Regulatory action
This article is about the recent decision of Ward CJ in Eq of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Psyche Holdings Pty Limited  NSWSC 1254.
In that case the secured creditor lodged a registration on the PPSR and later became aware of a defect in that registration. However, the secured creditor took no steps to amend the registration because they did not understand the significance of that defect and its impact on the enforceability of their security interest.
As a result, the secured creditor had to apply to the court for an extension of time (of 5 years!) in or to fix their mistake.