Our litigation team uniquely blends shrewd tactical advice, genuine expertise and a robust negotiating approach to deliver the best possible outcomes to clients.
The litigation team at Cavell Leitch are outstanding! I have used them for a variety of complex and challenging issues and they never fail to exceed my expectations. Just fantastic!
Some of our recent projects have included:
Winning a multi-million dollar arbitration for a large contractor against a multi-national telecommunications company.
Winning a court case for a bank where the borrower was trying to set aside loan agreements on the grounds that they had been obtained by undue influence, mistake or were unconscionable.
Successfully obtaining a High Court order admitting a Will to probate under which ownership of Westfield Riccarton land had been left to our client.
- Trans-Tasman disputes – out of which court do I sue?
- Changes in the Courts
- Is time running out on your earthquake insurance claim…again?
- Do changes to the Construction Contracts Act affect you?
- Is time running out on your earthquake insurance claim?
- EQC Action Group Settlement - landslide victory or confirming the status quo?
- New requirement for advanced notification to engineers in construction contracts: Contractors beware
- Southern Response v Avonside Holdings – The final word on contingencies in insurance settlements
- Changes to the Construction Contracts Act
- Interpreting replacement value - Tower v Skyward
- What EQC pays to repair earthquake damaged retaining walls
- Welcome change in District Court procedure
- “Once in a generation” change to domain names
- A victory for common sense - Ridgecrest v IAG
- Law cracks down on laser pointers
- Leaky building claims – some certainty for homeowners and a lesson for builders
- Rockfall danger in the red zone - Kraal vs EQC & Allianz
- Trans Tasman Litigation
- Online Scams: Too good to be true
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Council Liability for Leaky Buildings
- Increased Threshold for Disputes Tribunal Proposed
- O'Loughlin v Tower Insurance