Bata v Pathik & Ors [2025] VSCA 156
By Stuart Eustice, Partner and Lidia Martinez Chavez, Lawyer
In a significant decision, the Court of Appeal refused a stay of a $1.9 million judgment against builder the applicant, who was found liable for serious delays and defects in a Seaford residential development. The applicant argued that health issues, financial hardship, and a Binding Financial Agreement with his estranged wife justified a stay, but the Court found no “special or exceptional circumstances.”
Tsiragakis v Mallet [2025] VSCA 134
By Stuart Eustice, Partner and Lidia Martinez Chavez, Lawyer
Warning: This article contains descriptions of self-harm. The content may be distressing or triggering for some readers. Please take care when reading and consider whether this material is appropriate for you at this time.
In Tsiragakis v Mallet [2025] VSCA 134, the court examined whether a coworker owes a duty of care to avoid causing psychiatric harm by inflicting self-harm through a suicide attempt. The court ultimately held that no such duty exists in these circumstances, emphasising that reasonable forseeability alone is insufficient to impose liability without a close relationship or direct involvement.
Higgins v Pretorius [2025] ACTSC 64 (No 1)
By Lisa Quilty, Partner and Nyah Gray, Paralegal
On 15 March 2022, a long-standing neighbourhood dispute escalated when the Defendant struck the Plaintiff on the head with a rubber mallet during a confrontation over the nature strip outside their homes. The Defendant was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, pleaded guilty, and received a six-month suspended prison sentence with a 12-month good behaviour bond.
Trustees of the Christian Brothers v Colbert (a pseudonym) [2025] VSCA 122
By Stuart Eustice, Partner and Ashleigh Shankly, Lawyer
The Victorian Court of Appeal upheld the refusal to permanently stay abuse claims against the Trustees of the Christian Brothers, ruling that despite loss of evidence over 70 years, the case did not meet the threshold of ‘exceptional circumstances’ to prevent a fair trail. The decision reinforces that delays and challenges due to time alone are insufficient grounds to halt such proceedings.
Tattersall v Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd [2025] ACTCA 30
By Matthew Skelly, Special Counsel and Luca Oraha, Lawyer
In the this matter, we were involved in successfully defeating the plaintiff’s appeal in the Australian Capital Territory Court of Appeal seeking to overturn the finding that the plaintiff’s Offer of Compromise was invalid due to deficiencies in form and clarity.
By Stuart Eustice, Partner and Zoe Vlahogiannis, Lawyer
A snapshot of registered health practitioner misconduct in Victoria.