Search

Experience

Timothy accepts civil and commercial briefs, and is a Nationally Accredited Mediator (AMDRAS). He is a Reporter for the Victorian Reports.

Before being called to the Bar, Timothy was a solicitor at MinterEllison (2014-17), and Associate to the Honourable Justice Beach of the Federal Court of Australia (2017-18).

Timothy is admitted to the degrees of Master of Laws (2022), Juris Doctor (2013), and Bachelor of Arts (2010) in the University of Melbourne, where he was an Editor of the Melbourne Journal of International Law (2013). He is a Professional Member of the Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association (RITP), and a Graduate Member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors (GAICD).

He read with Robert Craig (as his Honour then was).

Cases

• Jeffreys v Sheer [2025] HCADisp 158Application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia, concerning objective formation of contract.
• Mitchell Asset Management Pty Ltd v Di Pasquale (No 2) [2025] VSC 346Application for costs of proceedings after trial, including indemnity costs.
• Mitchell Asset Management Pty Ltd v Di Pasquale [2025] VSC 307Trial concerning breaches of fiduciary duties, and misleading and deceptive conduct.
• Allen v Yarra Valley Railway Inc [2024] VSC 796Application for interlocutory injunction to restrain alleged nuisance.
• Mesh & Bar Pty Ltd v CMR Structure Group Pty Ltd [2024] VCC 858Review of decision of judicial registrar, concerning non-compliance with self-executing orders.
• Waters v Belza (No 2) [2024] VSC 191Application for costs for conduct causing loss of time to Court.
• Mancewicz v Truong [2024] VSC 167Application for removal of a caveat pursuant to s 90(3) of the Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic).
• Waters v Belza [2024] VSC 157Appeal from decision of Associate Justice concerning discovery in proceedings under pt IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic).
• Drake Constructions Vic Pty Ltd v Three Construct Group Pty Ltd [2023] VCC 1325Application for debts payable to a builder under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic).
• Re Sparkling Beverages Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] VSC 419Trial concerning whether contract formed in settlement of proceedings.
• Re Sparkling Beverages Pty Ltd [2023] VSC 258Application for trial of separate questions.
• Re Iceland Cold Storage Australia Pty Ltd [2023] VSC 206Trial concerning construction and performance of a deed of settlement.
• Voitin v GP Building Holdings Pty Ltd [2023] HCATrans 82Application for special leave to the High Court of Australia, concerning application of Briginshaw principles to knowing receipt claim.
• GP Building Holdings Pty Ltd v Voitin (2022) 69 VR 299Appeal concerning standards of knowledge for "knowing receipt", and application of the rule in Briginshaw.
• Mole v Mole [2021] VSC 752Application for injunction in judicial advice proceedings for a deceased estate.
• GP Building Holdings Pty Ltd v Voitin [2021] VCC 1487Trial of "knowing receipt" claim.
• Emma Tait Nominees Pty Ltd v Laprese [2020] VSC 508Application concerning indemnity by the Registrar of Titles pursuant to s 110 of the Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic).

Publications

• 'Between Two Trusts and a Hard Place: When a Liquidation Becomes More than Just an Appointment' (Presentation, Women in Insolvency & Restructuring Victoria, 26 June 2025)Considering the practical and theoretical challenges encountered when undertaking the liquidation of a corporate trustee.
• 'Termination for Breach of Contract: A Refresher' (Presentation, Leo Cussen Centre for Law, 18 March 2025)Considering methods for termination of an agreement for breach of contract, including at common law and pursuant to express terms.
• 'Masih v El Saeid: The Interplay of Family Law and Bankruptcy Principles' (Presentation, Women in Insolvency & Restructuring Victoria, 27 February 2024)Considering the implications of bankruptcy upon a party's standing in seeking property adjustment and spousal maintenance orders under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
• 'Barodawala v Perinparajah: The Fraud Exception to Provable Debts (Presentation, Women in Insolvency & Restructuring Victoria, 22 February 2023)Discussing the Court of Appeal decision in Barodawala v Perinparajah [2022] VSCA 198. The case concerned the little-considered “fraud exception” to whether a debt is provable in bankruptcy, with the Court of Appeal overturning the previously accepted (if little interrogated) position. The case is of particular interest because it is an example of a principle being accepted for many years based upon only one or two cases without any real considered authority.
• The Ring of Fire: Foreign State Immunity in Firebird Global Master Fund II Ltd v Republic of Nauru' in (2017) 22 Australian International Law Journal 147In June 2012, fund manager Firebird Global Master Fund II Ltd registered a judgment of the Tokyo District Court in the Supreme Court of NSW against the Republic of Nauru. It obliged Nauru to pay ¥1,300,000,000, plus interest. Firebird sought to garnish the amounts from Nauru government bank accounts in Australia. But the High Court of Australia confirmed definitively that the accounts were protected by foreign state immunity. It applied considered the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth) and the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) and their conformity with international law. This case note takes particular interest in the Court’s methods of discerning and applying international legal principles.
• An Inferred Contract, a Restitutionary Claim and an Alleged Cost-Sharing Arrangement - Woolcorp Pty Ltd v Rodger Constructions Pty Ltd' in (2017) 29 Australian Construction Law Bulletin 28In early 2017, the Victorian Court of Appeal overturned a decision of the County Court, ruling that the facts of the case could not support the trial judges findings of an implied contract, nor the alternative claim of a quantum meruit. This note considers the Court of Appeal's decision and the lessons it contains relating to contractual and restitutionary claims.
• A Nail-Biting Finish to a (Civil) Penalty Shootout: Commonwealth v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate; CFMEU v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate' in (2016) 42 Monash University Law Review 497In July 2015, the common occurrence of regulator and litigant making joint submissions regarding an appropriate range of civil penalties was ruled unlawful by the Full Court of the Federal Court. This was on the basis of the High Court’s decision in Barbaro v The Queen, where submissions regarding an appropriate range of sentences were ruled to be inadmissible opinion. In December 2015, the High Court overturned this decision and restored the status quo. This note considers the decisions of the Full Court and High Court and the two issues in greatest contention: whether principles of criminal law should be analogised to civil penalty proceedings; and whether the practice of joint penalty submissions is preferable as a matter of public policy. In particular, this note is concerned that the High Court failed to adequately address the varied criticisms raised against the practice. It considers the charge that courts merely ‘rubber-stamp’ the settled positions of the parties and proposes some steps that should be taken to address this issue.
• Federal Judicial Power to Reinstate Discontinued Proceedings: Chen v Monash University’ in (2016) 5 Journal of Civil Litigation and Practice 221In Chen v Monash University, the Full Court of the Federal Court determined whether it had the jurisdiction to reinstate appeal proceedings that had been discontinued – the same appellant who had discontinued the proceedings now sought to recommence them. The question before the Court required consideration of when it may be appropriate to set aside what amounts to a final judgment. This article considers the Full Court's decision and the factors that could be used to determine such applications.
• ‘Recovery of Misapplied Company Assets: The Strict Liability Claim in Great Investments v Warner’ in (2016) 17 Insolvency Law Bulletin 179. Republished in [2017] Butterworths Corporation Law Bulletin 2, 6 [21].In the Full Federal Court decision Great Investments Ltd v Warner, Jagot, Edelman and Moshinsky JJ considered how receivers could recover assets transferred out of a company without authority, holding that the assets were held on a constructive trust by their recipients subject to a strict liability claim. This article considers the Full Court's decision, in particular the strict liability claim that served as the company's cause of action.
• ‘Give ‘em an Inch and They’ll Take a Title: Torrens Legislation and Retail Leasing in Moreton Bay Regional Council v Mekpine Pty Ltd’ in (2016) 25 Australian Property Law Journal 92This note discusses the dispute over land resumption between Mekpine Pty Ltd and the Moreton Bay Regional Council. The dispute wound its way from the Land Court of Queensland to the High Court over the question of whether Mekpine was entitled to compensation by its rights to certain common areas under its lease. This note reviews the decisions of the courts in this dispute, pointing out that greater clarity is needed for parties whose interests in resumed land may arise from contractual rights or from long-term patterns of use.
• ‘Until Fraud Do Us Part: Reconciling Joint Tenancy and the Torrens Land System in Cassegrain v Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd’ in (2016) 16(2) QUT Law Review 93In early 2015, the High Court of Australia decided Cassegrain v Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd, relating to the fraudulent registration of a joint tenancy under Torrens legislation. The Court unanimously criticised the methods employed by lower courts in interpreting New South Wales’ Torrens legislation (and its ‘protection of purchasers’ provision) and in determining the existence and scope of an agency relationship. However, the Court split on the question of whether an innocent joint tenant had their interest rendered defeasible by reason of their co-joint tenant’s fraud. This article reviews and analyses in particular the Court’s evaluation and treatment of the legal principles of joint tenancy.