To see some of the more significant matters (reported and unreported) that Joel has appeared and advised in, please go to 'Extended Biography'.
Overview of Practice
Joel’s practice has seen him become a trusted commercial adviser to a wide range of clients. His increasing focus is in the building and construction field, together with property law (advising on easements, owners' corporations, leasing disputes, and nuisance matters). He often advises parties from the earliest stages of their disputes (including on obtaining expert evidence), and is experienced in the preparation and running of trials, both led and as sole counsel. He has a keen interest in alternative dispute resolution in the construction sphere, including arbitration,.
Joel accepts briefs in all Courts and Tribunals (state and federal), and has obtained significant experience in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). He read with Jeremy Twigg QC in 2014.
To view Joel's full CV, and to find some of his published works, you can visit his LinkedIn profile.
Relevant Skills and Experience
Joel continues to accumulate skills and experience which enhance his practice. These include:
Banking and Finance
ANZ Banking Group Ltd v Loftus  VSC 342 (Supreme Court of Victoria, led by Paul J Hayes, now QC), appeal from decision of an Associate Justice.
Sgargetta v National Australia Bank  VSCA 159 (Victorian Court of Appeal, led by Paul J Hayes, now QC), appeal from County Court of Victoria concerning construction of a Deed of Settlement.
Building and Construction
Bayraktar v Sherridon (Building and Property)  No.BP1379/2017, domestic building dispute - acting for builder in claim relating to general owner complaints of defective or incomplete works (ongoing)
Polzella v Govern Constructions, Roh Floor (Building and Property)  VCAT 1675, domestic building dispute – owner contracted builder to install timber floor, floorer to sand and coat – splits appeared in timber boards after project completed – alleged timber affected by "edge-bonding" adversely affected by by polyurethane coating – Tribunal rejected allegation, found floorer acted properly.
Raniti-CBMS v Ryan (Building and Property)  VCAT 281, trial concerning a domestic building contract with an insurer-determined scope of works - issues concerning surface and subsurface drainage – need for building permit.
Bitu-Mill v Australian Commercial Builders  D13835669 (Magistrates' Court of Victoria), defence and counterclaim concerning defective asphalt pavement, involving matters of design responsibility, express and implied warranties, exclusion clauses.
Haris v Kemal  No. C1816/2014 and No. C4846/2014 (VCAT), action concerning the construction of an additional dwelling on land by an owner builder for a family friend (settled by parties at trial).
Harmonious Blend Building Corporation (t/a Clark New Homes) v Ibraham (Building and Property)  VCAT 1084 (led by Jeremy A F Twigg, now QC), defence and counterclaim to action by Builder under the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Radovanovic & Djekic v Rizkez Constructions  No. D1344/2013 (VCAT), defence to claim against Builder concerning works undertaken and the scope of a domestic building contract (setting aside default order, appearence at compulsory conference, with settlement reached shortly after).
Brooker v Chelvadurai  H12586906 (Magistrates' Court of Victoria), for the accused, prosecuted by Maroondah City Council – matter concerned meaning of 'building work' within the Building Act 1993, accused had inspected works based on engineering drawings he had prepared, issued Certificates of Compliance – Builder had failed to obtain a building permit – Maroondah alleged inspections are 'building work' – charges dismissed as inspections not considered 'building work'
Commercial & Contracts
Liu v BJ Bennett & Co  (VCAT No.C83/2018) – claim by landlord against agent for alleged failure to exercise reasonable care when recommending a tenant – property raised several months in following discovery of a cannibas grow-house – agent found to have taken all care required, claim dismissed.
Asian Restaurants Concepts Franchising & Ors ('Noodle Box') v Mt Gravatt Noodle Box & Ors  SC ECI 2017 00160 (Supreme Court of Victoria), acting for parties associated with former franchisee on application by franchisor for interlocutory injunction to force urgent closure post-termination of franchise agreement - issues concerning Franchising Code of Conduct, restraint of trade clauses - whether franchisee required to cease trade and terminate lease - whether franchisee entitled to renew agreement - injunction refused.
Sharma v Sharma  F13320117 (Magistrates' Court of Victoria), claim between Indian nationals, uncle paid for niece to live and study in Australia (2001-7) - in 2015, alleges oral loan agreement in 2000, no contemporaneous notes - uncle to make subjective determination that niece capable of repayment - repayment term void for uncertainty, recovery barred after 6 years (Limitation of Actions Act 1958, s 5) - words giving rise to agreement not proven to standard in Watson v Foxman.
Raamish & Ayra v City of Melbourne  VSC 277 (Supreme Court of Victoria), action in equity and misleading conduct for injunction and damages concerning alleged arrangement to berth ferry.
Lowther v Wood (t/a Hudson Advisory Group) (Civil Claims)  VCAT 1499, action against mortgage broker and financial adviser under Australian Consumer Law for alleged misleading advice.
Goldsmith v Brous  SCI14-05226 (Supreme Court of Victoria, led by Paul J Hayes, now QC), defence to defamation action (settled at mediation).
Espedido v Physiotherapy Board of Australia (Review and Regulation)
Ventura v Ventura  VSC 485, application by originating motion under section 49 of the Property Law Act 1958 – three co-vendors (mother, son, daughter) entered into a Contract of Sale of Real Estate – son refuses to sign related documents to enable conveyancing solicitor to process transfer, where all other parties are ready, willing, and able to perform - application by co-vendors against other co-vendor to perform the Contract of Sale, including signing Client Authorisation Form (or in his absence Prothonotary, under s 22 of the Supreme Court Act 1986) – Contract of Sale held to include obligations as between vendors and purchasers, as well as between vendors and vendors
Owners' Corporation PS507084R v Marley  No. OC1861/2017 (VCAT), claim by Owners' Corporation for an implied easement (right of way) over external terrace of a top-floor apartment providing access to the building roof, under subsection 12(2) of the Subdivision Act 1988 – case involving similiar facts to Body Corporate No 413424R v Sheppard (2008) 20 VR 362 (awaiting decision)
Martin v Dyson (deceased)  SCI 2015-05051 (Supreme Court of Victoria), claim for equitable interest by proprietary estoppel over land occupied by client's parents, then client, upon promise by uncle (owner of land) of a life interest - family home sold to fund establishment of new dwelling on occupied land - whether promise extended to client - whether expectations of client/parents from promise were reasonable, or benefits amoratised over 20 years' occupation (matter settled at trial).
Frigo v Perry (Owners Corporations)  VCAT 730 – instructed by Moonee Valley Legal Centre on referral from Justice Connect – action in nuisance, interference with easements implied by section 12(2) of the Subdivision Act 1988 over driveway to rear lot on on a "battleaxe block" - front owner prevented from accessing side of own home via driveway by locked gate - neighbour required to permit access.
Murthy v KPS Services Pty Ltd  SCI 2015 00728 (Supreme Court of Victoria), application under Transfer of Land Act section 90(3) to remove caveat lodged without a legitimate basis, indemnity costs sought – defendant withdrew caveat before hearing, offered to pay party/party costs - application pursued despite withdrawal – indemnity costs obtained.
O'Sullivan v The Hon. Daniel Andrews, Premier of Victoria (2016) 50 VR 600;  VSC 560 (Supreme Court of Victoria, led by Daryl J Williams QC) application for mandamus following nomination to fill vacancy in Legislative Council, but no joint sitting called as specified in section 27A of the Victorian Constitution.
Shurat HaDin – Israel Law Centre v Lynch  NSD2235/2013 (Federal Court of Australia, led by Marcus Solomon SC), action concerning unlawful discrimination under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (settled prior to trial).
Director of Housing v Clyde  No. R2017/25483/00 (VCAT) – instructed by King & Wood Mallesons on referral from Justice Connect – tenant served with notice to vacate by Director, without offer of alternative accomodation – issue whether notice issued in the correct form – question of nature of evidence Director must lay before the Tribunal where nuisance alleged – consideration of Burgess v Director of Housing  VSC 648 – following initial adjournment, Director resolved to offer tenant new housing.
Lazarous v Kypri (Building and Property)  VCAT 2148, urgent interlocutory application brought following lockout of the tenant by the landlord - failure by landlord to particularise breaches in ostensible notices of breach, re-entry before time set under Property Law Act 1958 sub-s 146(2) – shown serious question to be tried, harm to tenant not adequately remedied by damages – interlocutory injunction granted – second injunction obtained after landlord removed water metre – landlord subsequent abandoned insistence on validity of notices of breach.
Glowell International v Biggin & Scott Commercial and 418 St Kilda Road (Building and Property)  VCAT 1342, issues concerning applicability of the Retail Leases Act 2003, construction of the terms of the lease, letter of offer versus signed lease - whether accounting fees incurred solely for litigation are damages or costs.
Grenville Trading v Braszell (Building and Property)  VCAT 877 (led by Thomas G Moloney), question of issue estoppel – failure of supermarket floor, second preliminary question - landlord sought declaration that lease not renewed due to finding on first preliminary question - tenant says breaches by landlord were not the subject of the previous hearing - whether Tribunal finally determined that tenant not entitled to withold rent for alleged breach by landlord - whether tenant entitled to renew lease - held issue not finally determined.