Grant Brittain QC
Most litigation settles. When you identify the commercial interests affected by the dispute, and analyse what can and can’t be achieved in court, this usually presents the parameters of commercially acceptable settlement options.
Considering whether to settle, and if so on what terms, then becomes a function of risk assessment. Even savvy commercial clients need guidance through this exercise.
If there is no settlement, then I have a proven track record in the court room. I appear regularly in the High Court and undertake appeals.
Please contact me to discuss my terms of engagement.
Some examples of cases undertaken in recent years are:
- Powell v Dakota Holdings – Caveats
- Martelli McAdams Solicitors Nominee Company Limited v Maisey (HC) – Contractual interpretation
- Body Corporate S73368 v Otway (CA) – Unit titles
- Splice Fruit Limited v The New Zealand Kiwifruit Board (HC) – Judicial review
- BC187820 v Auckland City Council (HC) – Developers non delegable duty of care
- Grosafe v McHardy (HC) – Breach of fiduciary duty and duty of confidence
- Pullar v The Secretary for Education (CA) – Builders duty of care and limitation
- Manson Developments Limited v Airport Trustees Limited (HC) – Caveats and equitable interests on subsale
- Drilling Fluid Equipment Limited v Falloon (HC) – Statutory demands, counterclaims and breach of director’s duties
- Samuels v Atkinson (CA) – Testamentary promises
- Fraser v BCS63621 (HC) – Unit titles
- Auckland Christian Mandarin Church v Canam (HC) – Directors duties and the duty of care in commercial construction
- Scott v Ellison (CA) – Contractual warranties and trustees
- BC318596 v Mathis (HC) – The liability of employee building inspectors for negligence
- Fairway Holdings v Furno (HC) – Shareholder oppression
- Maketu Estates v Robb (HC) – Breach of fiduciary duty
- Lewis v Abernethy (HC) – Family Protection Act
- Stuart v Pieters (HC) – Estate administration
- Brain v Harwood (HC) – Family Protection Act