Running a business in Sydney can be challenging, and financial issues can arise at any time . However, financial distress does not suddenly occur. It develops over time, especially when businesses ignore early warning signs. Identifying these warning signs at an early stage allows directors to manage financial risk, pursue restructuring, and reduce insolvency risk.
Under Australian law, a company is insolvent if it cannot pay its debts as and when they fall due. As considered in ASIC v Plymin, Elliot & Harrison [2003] VSC 123, courts have identified a range of common factors indicative of insolvency that assist in assessing a company’s financial position.
Below are five critical warning signs of insolvency and what should be done in response to manage the accompanying risks.
Cash flow is fundamental to any business and is often the first area where insolvency risk becomes apparent. A business is insolvent if it cannot pay its debts as and when they fall due, even if it otherwise appears profitable.
As considered in ASIC v Plymin, Elliot & Harrison [2003] VSC 123, common factors indicative of insolvency related to cash flow concerns include:
If a business experiences ongoing cash-flow problems, as opposed to temporary illiquidity, this may indicate insolvency. In such circumstances, directors should assess solvency and consider whether early restructuring options may save the business.
Another indicator of potential insolvency is a liquidity ratio below 1, where current liabilities exceed current assets. This suggests that the business lacks sufficient short-term resources to meet its obligations.
If a business experiences ongoing cash-flow problems as opposed to temporary illiquidity, this may indicate insolvency. In such circumstances, directors should assess solvency and consider whether early restructuring options may save the business.
Unpaid debts and tax arrears are strong indicators that a business is under financial distress. Many businesses delay tax payments to manage cash flow. However, when these tax liabilities accumulate, they may reflect insolvency.
Common warning signs include:
Unpaid superannuation is particularly serious, as it can expose directors to personal liability.
The existence of significant unpaid tax obligations may indicate insolvency, regardless of whether the company continues to trade. Continuing to incur further debts while substantial arrears remain unpaid may also increase exposure to insolvent trading risk.
Early professional advice can help a business to conduct assessments, manage negotiations, and determine whether restructuring or formal insolvency pathways should be considered.
Difficulty paying trade creditors is often one of the most visible signs of insolvency. If a company is unable to consistently pay creditors as debts fall due and payable, creditors may take action, including:
Overdue creditor payments should always be promptly dealt with and never ignored. Engaging in negotiations with creditors and considering early restructuring options can reduce the risk of escalation.
Receiving a statutory demand from a creditor may indicate that a company is experiencing financial distress and may be at risk of insolvency. Statutory demands are strictly enforced, and failing to respond within the required timeframe may trigger a presumption of insolvency.
If the demand is not complied with or set aside, the creditor may apply to the Court to wind up the company. If a winding-up order is made and a liquidator is appointed, control of the company passes to the liquidator and the directors’ powers cease.
Statutory demands should never be ignored, as strict time limits apply.
Ongoing trading losses are a common feature of insolvent companies. While short-term losses can occur during a company’s growth stage or due to unexpected market conditions, ongoing losses without any reasonable restructuring arrangements pose significant risk.
Warning signs include:
Directors have a duty to prevent the company from incurring further debts if there are reasonable grounds to suspect insolvency. Continuing to trade without taking proactive steps to relieve the company from financial distress can expose directors to personal liability for insolvent trading.
If losses continue, directors should act swiftly to mitigate further financial harm by considering restructuring, cost reduction, or voluntary administration.
If warning signs of insolvency are present, directors must take immediate action. Directors should:
Early action allows directors to consider options and significantly reduces the risk of personal liability.
Financial distress can be overwhelming, but you do not have to navigate it alone. At Chamberlains Law Firm, experienced insolvency lawyers work closely with Sydney business owners to provide clear, practical advice tailored to their circumstances.
If your business is showing signs of financial difficulty, acting early can make a meaningful difference.
Contact us today for a confidential consultation.
Section 95A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (‘Corporations Act’) defines insolvency as the inability of a company to pay its debts as and when they become due and payable. This is commonly described as a cash-flow test and forms the foundation of any assessment of a company’s financial position.
According to section 588G of the Corporations Act, directors are required to prevent a company from incurring debts while it is insolvent. When insolvency is suspected, directors must take immediate action to protect the company from further financial harm. This may include obtaining appropriate professional advice, as obtaining advice at an early stage is often the most effective way to protect both the company and the director personally. Directors seeking to rely on the statutory safe harbour regime for protection from personal liability (as discussed further below) should be aware that such protection is only available where directors take genuine and proactive steps.
Insolvent trading arises where a company incurs a debt at a time when it is insolvent, or where incurring that debt causes the company to become insolvent. Section 588G of the Corporations Act imposes a duty on directors to prevent this from occurring. Directors must remain informed about the company’s financial position and take reasonable action if warning signs appear.
A director may be exposed to personal liability where the company was insolvent at the time the debt was incurred, or became insolvent as a result, and the director knew or ought reasonably to have suspected that insolvency existed. Liability will arise where the director failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the company from incurring the debt.
The consequences can be significant, especially since liquidators frequently bring claims seeking compensation for losses suffered by creditors. Civil penalties may also be imposed and, in cases involving dishonesty, criminal liability is possible. These provisions are designed to ensure that directors do not allow a financially distressed company to continue trading at the expense of creditors.
As noted above, section 95A of the Corporations Act defines insolvency as the inability to pay debts as and when they become due and payable. A company may have substantial assets recorded on its balance sheet and still be insolvent if it lacks the liquidity to meet its obligations when required.
To ascertain whether a company is insolvent, courts assess the company’s financial position as a whole, taking into account its cash flow, access to funding, creditor arrangements, overdue taxation liabilities and the reliability of financial records. This holistic approach is used because insolvency cannot be reliably inferred from a single factor, but rather must be determined by considering a range of financial indicators.
In Southern Cross Interiors Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2001) 53 NSWLR 213, the Court confirmed that insolvency is a question of fact and must be assessed by reference to a company’s overall financial position. A temporary shortfall in cash may not indicate insolvency if there is a genuine and immediate prospect of funding. However, an ongoing pattern of unpaid debts or reliance on informal extensions may indicate a more genuine inability to meet obligations.
Similarly, in The Bell Group Ltd (in liq) v Westpac Banking Corporation [No 9] [2008] WASC 239, the Court emphasised that insolvency must be assessed by examining whether the company could meet its debts in the ordinary course of business, distinguishing between temporary financial distress and a sustained inability to pay debts as they fall due.
Directors should also consider recurring losses, accumulating tax liabilities, unpaid employee entitlements, creditor pressure and difficulty producing accurate financial information. Delegating responsibilities does not relieve directors of liability, as they are expected to remain properly informed about the company’s financial position.
When a company begins to display signs of insolvency, prompt action is essential. The first step should be to obtain independent professional advice. Insolvency practitioners and restructuring lawyers can assist in assessing the company’s position and identifying realistic options. Early advice often preserves alternatives that may no longer be available if action is delayed.
Directors must also ensure that proper books and records are maintained. Under section 588E of the Corporations Act, a lack of record-keeping can give rise to presumptions of insolvency in subsequent proceedings. Inadequate records not only affect decision-making but can significantly weaken any defence to an insolvent trading claim.
Directors should then consider the available restructuring options, such as refinancing, small business restructuring processes, or voluntary administration where appropriate. Continuing to take on further debts without a clear and documented plan to improve the company’s financial position significantly increases the risk of personal liability.
Where insolvency is likely, directors must consider the interests of creditors when making decisions. Continuing to trade may be appropriate in some circumstances, but only where there is a genuine and properly considered plan to improve the company’s financial position.
Section 588GA of the Corporations Act provides a statutory “safe harbour” from insolvent trading liability. The protection applies where, after suspecting that the company may be insolvent, a director begins developing and takes a course of action that is reasonably likely to lead to a better outcome for the company than the immediate appointment of an administrator or liquidator.
A “better outcome” is assessed objectively. In determining whether this requirement is met, the court will consider whether the director has properly informed themselves of the company’s financial position, taken appropriate steps to prevent misconduct, ensured that proper financial records are maintained, obtained advice from a qualified adviser, and developed or implemented a restructuring plan aimed at improving the company’s financial position.
Safe harbour is not automatic and is subject to important limitations. It will not apply where the company has failed to pay employee entitlements when due or has not complied with its taxation reporting obligations. The director also bears the evidential burden of demonstrating that the requirements of the provision are met.
Overall, safe harbour protects directors who act early, obtain appropriate advice, and actively pursue a genuine restructuring strategy. It does not protect directors who delay action or continue trading without a clear and properly developed plan.
Directors should seek advice at the earliest sign of sustained financial difficulty. Waiting until creditors commence recovery proceedings or issue statutory demands significantly reduces available options and increases risk.
Early engagement with experienced advisers can assist with negotiations with creditors, the development of restructuring proposals and, where necessary, a structured transition to formal insolvency processes. For companies operating across Australia, obtaining specialist insolvency advice at an early stage can be critical in navigating these issues effectively.
Obtaining advice early not only helps identify the available options, but also may demonstrate that directors have taken reasonable steps to pursue a better outcome than immediate liquidation or administration. This can be important if their decisions are later examined.
Directors of companies facing financial difficulty have serious legal responsibilities. The insolvent trading provisions of the Corporations Act require directors to actively monitor the company’s financial position and take timely action where needed. Assessing insolvency involves looking realistically at whether the company can meet its debts, based on accurate and up-to-date financial information.
Seeking advice early, keeping clear records, and carefully managing any restructuring process are important steps in reducing personal risk. While the safe harbour provisions can provide protection, they apply only where directors take genuine and proactive steps to address the company’s financial position.
If your company is experiencing financial pressure, obtaining tailored insolvency advice as early as possible is one of the most effective ways to protect both the business and your personal position.
This decision serves as a clear reminder to employers and their HR personnel, silence can be costly.
Chamberlains recently acted for Ms Joanna Yi, (the Applicant) in Yi v Epec Group Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 749. The Commission rejected the employer’s objection that Ms Yi had not been “dismissed”, finding in favour of the Applicant and progressing the matter to conference.
This decision provides strong clarification on employer obligations where an employee resigns based on a mistaken understanding the employer fails to correct, reinforcing that “doing nothing” can itself, amount to a dismissal.
Ms Yi commenced with Epec Group Pty Ltd (the Respondent) in November 2024 as a casual Senior Accountant. From April 2025, she performed the duties of Group Finance Manager (GFM) following a verbal announcement to staff and ongoing discussions with management about formalising her new role. These discussions were supported by evidence showing Ms Yi repeatedly confirming her performance of the GFM role, with no contradiction by the Respondent’s management personnel.
In August 2025, EPEC appointed a new Head of Finance and, during discussions on 27 August 2025, Ms Yi was informed that the GFM role required relocation to Brisbane. When she informed the Respondent’s management personnel that she could not relocate, she was told “if you’re not going to move to Brisbane then you will need to resign.” Within hours, Ms Yi issued her resignation consistent with that understanding and referred to the relocation requirement in said resignation.
EPEC disputed this version of events. EPEC argued that Ms Yi had always remained a casual Senior Accountant and chose to resign voluntarily.
When it came to the resignation letter itself, EPEC’s witness told the Commission she had read it, however she did not think to speak with Ms Yi about it. That decision proved costly.
Commissioner Fox rejected the EPEC jurisdictional objection, finding that Ms Yi was dismissed within the meaning of s 386 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (The Act). The Commission held:
The Commissioner found that EPEC’s passive acceptance of the resignation, without correcting Ms Yi’s understanding about her role, constituted a termination initiated by EPEC pursuant to section s 386(1)(a)) of the Act. The Commissioner expressly noted that if EPEC believed Ms Yi’s Senior Accountant role remained available, it failed to take the obvious step of informing her of the latter.
This decision reinforces the principle that a resignation will be treated as a dismissal where the employer’s conduct (including silence) leads directly to the end of employment.
Even if the matter did not fall under section 386(1)(a) of the Act, the Commission found an alternative basis for the decision pursuant to section section 386(1)(b) of the Act. The Commission accepted Ms Yi’s uncontested evidence that she was told she must either accept the Brisbane-based role or resign, leaving her no real choice. That is, Ms Yi’s resignation was therefore forced by the EPEC’s conduct, by virtue of the move-or-resign ultimatum.
Read the full decision here.
Workplace relations in Australia operate within a well‑established framework of legislation, case law, and organisational standards. When conduct arises which may fall outside these boundaries, employers must act promptly and responsibly. Ensuring that concerns are addressed in a transparent and procedurally fair manner is a legal necessity. Employment lawyers are often engaged to support employers through this process, helping ensure that workplace investigations are conducted impartially and in alignment with Australian workplace laws. A well‑structured investigation supports accurate fact‑finding and significantly reduces the risk of unfair dismissal or general protections claims under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
The following sections outline the key stages of a workplace investigation and how employment lawyers assist employers in maintaining a fair, thorough, and legally compliant process.
A workplace investigation is typically required when allegations arise involving misconduct, breaches of workplace policies, or potentially unlawful conduct. Common examples include bullying, harassment, discrimination, fraud, or safety‑related concerns. Since employers have a positive obligation to provide a safe and lawful workplace, neglecting to investigate such matters can expose the business to serious legal and organisational risk.
Concerns may be raised by an employee or identified independently by the employer. What matters most is that the employer responds in a measured and impartial manner, ensuring that the process is structured in accordance with procedural fairness. A well‑managed investigation assists the employer in determining what occurred and taking reasonable and defensible action in response, while also protecting against potential claims before the Fair Work Commission if the outcome affects an employee’s employment.
Procedural fairness sits at the core of every effective workplace investigation. Employment lawyers guide employers through the steps required to ensure that the investigation is lawful and free from bias. This includes providing the employee with clear notice of the allegations and offering a genuine opportunity to respond. These requirements align with the factors in section 387 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), which later inform whether a dismissal may be judged as harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.
Throughout the process, workplace lawyers help employers ensure that the investigator remains impartial by considering the information presented objectively and avoid forming conclusions prematurely. Where necessary, confidentiality is maintained at every stage, and all discussions with employees are handled in a way that upholds privacy and safety of the involved employees. In practice, this means working within organisational policies, relevant workplace laws, and established principles of procedural fairness to ensure the final findings are transparent, reliable, and defensible.
Once a workplace investigation has concluded, employers must assess the findings carefully and determine the appropriate next steps. Depending on the outcome, this may involve issuing a warning, implementing disciplinary measures, or in more serious circumstances, terminating employment in accordance with organisational policies and the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Employers may also use this opportunity to strengthen their workplace practices, review policies, or implement further training where broader issues are identified.
For employees, outcomes vary based on the evidence and findings. Some may be cleared of any wrongdoing, while others may face performance management or disciplinary action. Importantly, a flawed or procedurally unfair investigation substantially increases the likelihood of an employee pursuing an unfair dismissal or general protections claim. Ensuring that the investigation is conducted consistently, fairly, and in line with section 387 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) remains one of the most effective ways for employers to mitigate this risk.
Ultimately, the post‑investigation stage gives employers the opportunity to address workplace concerns and ensure the ongoing safety and legal compliance of their organisation.
Workplace investigations play a crucial role in addressing allegations of misconduct and ensuring that employers discharge their obligations fairly and transparently. With support from experienced employment lawyers, employers can be confident that each stage of an investigation, from identifying the issues to making final decisions, is handled in a way that is compliant with Australian workplace laws and aligned with procedural fairness. A robust investigation process not only supports accurate outcomes but also significantly reduces exposure to potential unfair dismissal or general protections claims.
At Chamberlains Law Firm, our workplace lawyers provide clear and practical advice to help you navigate even the most complex workplace investigations. Whether you are dealing with allegations, managing an internal process, or responding to an unfair dismissal claim, our team of employment lawyers are here to support you with timely and strategic guidance. Contact us today to discuss your matter.
Chamberlains Law Firm are currently assisting in investigations related to serious allegations of abuse at Our Lady of Dolours Catholic Church. We urge anyone who may have witnessed an incident of abuse, or who has any information that might assist in these investigations, to come forward and speak with one of our compensation lawyers.
Your voice may be crucial in ensuring that those responsible are held accountable.
We understand that speaking out about sensitive matters like this can be difficult. Information you have may make a significant difference in providing closure and support to those affected and may be instrumental in creating a safer and more supportive environment for everyone.
If you have any information, we encourage you to reach out to our abuse compensation lawyers. All communications will be kept strictly in confidence.
AA v. The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle ABN 79469343054 [2026] HCA 2
Appellant – AA
Respondent – The Trustees for the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle
On Wednesday morning, the High Court of Australia handed down its decision in AA v. The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle (herein referred to as ‘AA’).[1]
AA,[2] on appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, examined the scope of common law non-delegable duty of care, and whether such a duty could be established in this case.
The High Court, by majority, allowed the appeal by AA and concluded that a religious institution can indeed owe a non-delegable duty of care to a parishioner.
In 1969, at the age of thirteen, the appellant was sexually assaulted by Father Ronald Pickin (“Father Pickin”), the assistant priest at St Patrick’s Church, Wallsend NSW at the time.[3] Father Pickin also taught religious scripture at Wallsend High School in 1969.[4]
The appellant attended St Patrick’s Church and Wallsend High School, where he met Father Pickin. Father Pickin would invite the appellant and several other boys to the presbytery to use a poker machine and consume beer and cigarettes; this is where the abuse was to occur.[5]
Both the Church and School are located within the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle.[6]
In 2024, the appellant commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales against the respondent claiming damages for psychological injuries sustained as a result of sexual abuse perpetrated by Father Pickin.[7] The trial was heard before Schmidt AJ between 23 and 28 August 2024.
On 20 September 2024, Schmidt AJ decided in favour of the Plaintiff (AA). She concluded that Father Pickin did sexually abuse the Plaintiff in 1969, and that the Diocese should be held both directly and vicariously liable for the harm caused Father Pickin.[8]
On 27 February 2025, the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the orders made by Schmidt AJ on 15 April 2025, citing errors in her fact-finding process.[9]
On 17 June 2025, the appellant’s application for special leave to appeal was granted by the High Court.
In a majority judgment, Gageler CJ, Jagot, Beech-Jones, Gordon and Edelman JJ agreed that the Diocese was liable to AA for breach of a non-delegable common law duty of care.[10] The relevant duty owed to AA in 1969 was a duty to a child to ensure that while the child was under the care, supervision or control of a priest of the Diocese, as a result of the priest purportedly performing a function of a priest of the Diocese, reasonable care was taken to prevent reasonably foreseeable personal injury to the child.[11]
The majority held that:
Steward and Gleeson JJ concluded that the appeal should be dismissed.
Steward J agreed that the Church owed the appellant a non-delegable duty of care but reasoned that that duty only covered what was considered “Church events”.[18] Anything outside of that scope, such as Father Pickin inviting the appellant and other boys to the presbytery, does not attract a non-delegable duty of care.[19]
In line with the reasoning of the Court of Appeal, Steward J argued that the cases of Lepore and Bird[20] preclude intentional torts from being covered by non-delegable duties.[21] And further, that the amendments made to Part 1B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), which echo the reasoning in Lepore, draw a clear distinction between taking reasonable care to ensure that unintentional conduct does not cause harm and preventing intentional criminal conduct.[22] The majority of the High Court responded to this same issue by reopening Lepore and overruling it.[23]
Gleeson J relied on the reasoning in Bird to argue that Father Pickin was not an employee of the Diocese, and therefore, the relationship between Father Pickin and the appellant did not fall under, or was not “sufficiently analogous” to, one of the recognised relationships of vicarious liability.[24] As such, the appellant could not succeed in establishing a common law non-delegable duty of care on the part of the respondent.
The following orders were made:
This eminently sensible decision from the High Court should be read in conjunction with their late-2024 decision in Bird which held that a similarly engaged priest was not an employee of his diocese and so the diocese was not vicariously liable for his criminal misconduct.[25] It must be noted that the plaintiff in the Bird decision had not made an argument on the basis of a non-delegable duty but rather sought to stretch the doctrine of vicarious liability beyond employees to relationships that were described as “akin to employment”.[26] This was because of the High Court’s 2003 decision in Lepore which effectively meant that there could be no non-delegable duty owed by the Diocese in respect of an intentional criminal act of one of its priests.[27]
An unfortunate consequence of the High Court’s decision in Lepore was that plaintiffs had increasingly relied upon the doctrine of vicarious liability in institutional abuse claims, and in Bird had sought to extend the doctrine beyond employment.[28] That approach was rejected by the High Court in Bird in a decision that was widely perceived as benefiting defendants (especially church-based defendants) in institutional abuse claims.
By overturning Lepore this decision restores the proper basis for defendants’ liability in institutional abuse claims as arising from a non-delegable duty towards children placed in the care of adults and institutions.
[1] AA v. The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle ABN 79469343054 [2026] HCA 2.
[2] Ibid.
[3] AA v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle [2024] NSWSC 1183; 334 IR 70.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid [8].
[9] Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle v AA [2025] NSWCA 72 [16] (Bell CJ), [131]-[152] (Leeming JA).
[10] AA v. The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle ABN 79469343054 (n 1) [153].
[11] AA v. The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle ABN 79469343054 (n 1) [6].
[12] AA v. The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle ABN 79469343054 (n 1).
[13] New South Wales v Lepore [2003] HCA 4; 212 CLR 511.
[14] AA v. The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle ABN 79469343054 (n 1).
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Bird v DP (a pseudonym) [2024] HCA 41; 98 ALJR 1349.
[21] AA v. The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle ABN 79469343054 (n 1).
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Bird v DP (a pseudonym) (n 20).
[26] Ibid.
[27] New South Wales v Lepore (n 13).
[28] Bird v DP (a pseudonym) (n 20).
At Chamberlains Law Firm, we understand that preventing commercial disputes is far more cost effective and less stressful than resolving them. Our Litigation, Insolvency and Restructuring team is here to help you navigate the complexities of business relationships and ensure your operations run smoothly. Below, we outline the seven most effective strategies to prevent commercial disputes before they arise.
A well drafted contract is integral to successful business operations and relationships. Clear and detailed contracts help set expectations, define roles, and outline responsibilities, leaving little room for ambiguity. By addressing potential issues upfront, such as payment terms, dispute resolution mechanisms, and termination clauses, businesses can avoid misunderstandings that often lead to unnecessary and complicated disputes. Our litigation lawyers can assist in drafting or reviewing your contracts ensuring that your agreements are legally sound and tailored to your specific needs.
Regular legal review by lawyers experienced with litigation can help identify potential risks and ensure compliance with current laws and regulations. Businesses evolve, and so do legal requirements. A periodic review of your contracts, policies, and practices by our litigation team can help you stay ahead of potential issues, reducing the likelihood of disputes. This proactive approach can save your business significant time and resources in the long run.
Miscommunication is one of the leading causes of business disputes. Establishing clear and open lines of communication with your partners, suppliers, and clients can help prevent misunderstandings. Regular updates, transparent discussions, and written confirmations of agreements can go a long way in fostering trust and reducing the risk of disputes. Our team have extensive experience in dispute resolution and can also assist in mediating discussions to ensure all parties are on the same page.
Conducting thorough due diligence on potential business partners, suppliers, and clients is essential in avoiding future conflicts. It is essential to understand the financial stability, reputation, and legal history of the parties you intend to work with so that you can ensure you make informed and calculated decisions. Our team can assist in conducting these checks, ensuring that you enter relationships with reliable and trustworthy parties.
Implementing robust internal policies and procedures can help your business avoid disputes by ensuring consistency and compliance. These policies should cover areas such as employee conduct, dispute resolution, and risk management. Regular training and clear communication of these policies to your team are equally important. Our team can help you draft and implement these policies to safeguard your business.
While litigation is sometimes necessary, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods such as mediation and arbitration can often resolve disputes more efficiently and cost effectively. ADR processes are less formal and adversarial, making them an attractive option for businesses looking to preserve relationships. Our team can guide you through the ADR process, ensuring a fair and timely resolution.
Metrics can be a powerful tool for identifying potential areas of conflict before they escalate into disputes. By tracking patterns and analysing data, businesses can pinpoint recurring issues and implement preventative measures. This proactive approach not only reduces the risk of disputes but also enhances operational efficiency. Our team can help you develop and interpret these metrics to protect your business interests.
At Chamberlains Law Firm, we are committed to helping you prevent and resolve commercial disputes effectively. Our Litigation Lawyers team has a depth of experience in litigation and dispute resolution and is here to provide tailored advice and support for your business. Contact us today to learn how we can assist you in safeguarding your business relationships and ensuring your operations run smoothly.
A step‑by‑step, practical guide to buying property in Sydney with confidence in 2026.
| Stage | The Focus | What You Will Learn |
| 1 | Financial Preparation |
|
| 2 | Research & Property Selection |
|
| 3 | Legal & Conveyancing |
|
| 4 | Inspections & Due Diligence |
|
| 5 | Finance Finalisation & Pre‑Settlement |
|
| 6 | Settlement, Handover & Moving |
|
| 7 | Post‑Settlement & Ownership Optimisation |
|
Buying a home is one of the most significant financial and legal decisions most people will ever make — yet the process is often rushed, fragmented, or driven by emotion. Without a clear structure, buyers can easily overlook critical steps, misunderstand their obligations, or commit to a property without fully appreciating the risks involved.
“In today’s property landscape, preparation is essential. A forward‑thinking approach helps buyers anticipate risks, move decisively when opportunities arise, and protect their position well before contracts are signed.”
— Harold O’Brien, Property Director
This checklist is designed to bring clarity and control to the buying process. By breaking the journey into clear stages, it helps you understand what needs to be done, when it should be done, and why it matters, reducing uncertainty and enabling better decision‑making at every step.
Following a structured approach can help you:
Whether you’re a first‑home buyer or an experienced purchaser, having a clear roadmap allows you to approach the process strategically — ensuring you’re not just buying a property, but making a sound long‑term decision.
Are you financially ready to buy, or just keen to get started? This section helps you step back and assess whether your budget, savings, borrowing capacity, and financial buffers truly support the purchase you’re considering, not just today, but over the life of the loan.
1.1 Budget & Affordability
1.2 Deposit & Savings Strategy
1.3 Loan Options & Features
1.4 Credit & Eligibility
1.5 Government Schemes & Grants (if eligible)
1.6 Risk Management & Buffers
Do you know what you’re really looking for and why? This section encourages you to think critically about location, property type, and market conditions, so your choices are guided by fit, value, and long‑term considerations rather than emotion or urgency.
2.1 Location & Lifestyle Fit
2.2 Market Intelligence
2.3 Property Type & Condition
2.4 Strata & Community Title (if applicable)
2.5 Future Value & Resale Considerations
Do you understand the legal implications of the contract you’re about to sign? This section introduces the legal side of buying property, helping you recognise where professional advice matters, what risks can arise, and how conveyancing protects your interests throughout the transaction.
3.1 Engage Your Conveyancer Early
3.2 Contract of Sale Review
3.3 Searches & Certificates
3.4 Cooling‑Off, Auctions & Private Treaties
3.5 Stamp Duty & Other Government Costs
What might you be missing beneath the surface? This section focuses on the checks that reveal a property’s true condition — from building and pest issues to strata and records reviews — so you can make decisions based on facts, not assumptions.
4.1 Building & Pest Inspection
4.2 Specialist Assessments (if needed)
4.3 Strata Due Diligence (apartments/townhouses)
4.4 Boundary & Title Verification
4.5 Environmental & Location Risks
Is everything in place for settlement to proceed smoothly? This section guides you through final loan approval, lender conditions, insurance, and last‑minute checks to ensure there are no surprises as settlement approaches.
5.1 Loan Approval & Documentation
5.2 Settlement Planning
5.3 Insurance & Risk Protection
5.4 Final Inspection (Pre‑Settlement)
What actually happens on settlement day? This section explains the final legal and practical steps, including the transfer of ownership, key handover, and what you should expect as you take possession of your new home.
6.1 The Day of Settlement
6.2 Handover Essentials
6.3 Moving Logistics
6.4 Setup & Personalisation
What comes after you get the keys? This section looks beyond settlement, prompting you to think about ongoing responsibilities, protecting your asset, and positioning yourself well for future financial or property decisions.
7.1 Admin & Notifications
7.2 Home Maintenance & Safety
7.3 Financial Efficiency
7.4 Long‑Term Value
At Chamberlains Law Firm, we combine expertise with transparency to make conveyancing straightforward and predictable. Our Sydney Conveyancing team conducts thorough contract and title checks, explains conveyancing costs upfront, coordinates settlement seamlessly, and stays available through mobile‑first communication. Whether you’re buying at auction, off‑the‑plan, or under tight timelines, we tailor our approach to your needs, so you can move forward with certainty and a clear plan.
Running a business in Sydney can be challenging, especially since financial issues can arise at any given time depending on the circumstances. However, financial distress does not suddenly occur. Financial distress develops over time, especially when businesses ignore early warning signs. Identifying these signs early allows directors to manage financial risk, pursue restructuring, and reduce insolvency risk.
Below are six critical warning signs of insolvency and what should be done to manage these risks.
Cash flow is the lifeblood of any business and often the first area where insolvency risk becomes apparent. A business may be insolvent if it cannot pay its debts as and when they fall due, even if they appear profitable. As shown in ASIC v Plymin, Elliot & Harrison [2003] VSC 123, early warning signs commonly include:
Another key indicator is a liquidity ratio below 1, where current liabilities exceed current assets. This suggests the business lacks sufficient short-term resources to meet its obligations. If a business experiences ongoing cash-flow problems as opposed to temporary illiquidity, this may indicate insolvency. In such circumstances, directors should assess solvency and consider whether early restructuring options may save the business.
Unpaid debts and tax arrears are strong indicators that a business is under financial distress. Many businesses delay tax payments to manage cash flow. However, when these tax liabilities accumulate, they may reflect insolvency. Common warning signs include:
Unpaid superannuation is particularly serious, as it can expose directors to personal liability. Continuing to trade while tax obligations remain unpaid may indicate insolvency, especially if the company is not shown to enter any payment arrangements to manage these debts. Early professional advice from insolvency lawyers in Sydney can help assess whether any obligations are not being fulfilled, manage negotiations, and determine whether restructuring or formal insolvency pathways should be considered.
Difficulty paying trade creditors is often one of the most visible signs of insolvency. If a company is unable to consistently pay creditors as debts fall due and payable, creditors may take action, including:
Statutory demands on the other hand can result in serious legal consequences. These demands are usually very strictly enforced, and failing to respond may trigger a presumption of insolvency. This may risk the company being wound up and liquidated through a court order. Once court action commences, directors automatically lose control of the company and their powers cease.
Overdue creditor payments and statutory demands should always be promptly dealt with and never ignored. Engaging in negotiations with creditors and considering early restructuring options can save your company from liquidation.
Ongoing trading losses are a common feature of insolvent companies. While short-term losses can occur during a company’s growth stage or unexpected market conditions, ongoing losses without any reasonable restructuring arrangements pose significant insolvent trading risks. Warning signs include:
Directors have a duty to prevent the company from incurring further debts if there are reasonable grounds to suspect insolvency. Continuing to trade without taking proactive steps to relieve the company from financial distress can expose directors to personal liability for insolvent trading. If losses continue, directors should act swiftly to mitigate further financial harm by consider restructuring, cost reduction, or voluntary administration to avoid insolvent trading.
If warning signs of insolvency are present, directors must take immediate action. Directors should:
Early action allows directors to consider options and significantly reduces the risk of personal liability.
Financial distress can be overwhelming, but you do not have to navigate it alone. At Chamberlains Law Firm, experienced insolvency lawyers work closely with Sydney business owners to provide clear, practical advice tailored to their circumstances.
If your business is showing signs of financial difficulty, acting early can make a meaningful difference.
Contact us today for a confidential consultation. We’re with you.
It’s a ‘hard grind’ or ‘challenging work’. This is what I often hear from lawyers who have experience working in Abuse law. Those who have no experience working in this space often say “I don’t know how you do it, I couldn’t do it. It must be so hard”.
I am an abuse lawyer working in the WA jurisdiction. I do this every day. It can be very challenging. Sometimes I question how do I manage this work?
I can only imagine how fatiguing it is for survivors who have carried the trauma of abuse all their lives. I have a choice to do this work or not. I can take a break, check out if I want. They did not have a choice and they don’t have the luxury of taking a break. Some of our survivors fall into drugs and alcohol to cope with their trauma. Others work themselves so hard to avoid thinking about the trauma.
This is not a glorious field of work. It’s not like we can ring a bell when we settle a matter for our client. The satisfaction of the work is knowing that you played some small part in changing his or her life for the better.
A bit of feedback is always humbling especially after achieving a positive outcome for a client. In my experience the points below are important in our interactions with survivors of abuse.
If you’ve been injured and want to ensure you receive the compensation you deserve, reach out to the Injury & Compensation (ACT/NSW/WA) Team at Chamberlains Law Firm. Our experienced team of personal injury lawyers is here to guide you every step of the way.
We value our clients and listen to their stories. Contact us today. We’re with you.