Our team
» 
Victor Dominello
CONSULTANT
Victor Dominello commenced employment at Etheringtons in 1994 and became a Partner in 2000 to head the Litigation division of the firm. Victor is now a consultant to the firm since October 2008. Victor’s experience in litigation has developed extensively since his admission as a solicitor in 1991. He has acted in several significant and complex disputes over a broad field of practice.
Victor is dedicated and pro-active in advocating the interests of his clients, using his expertise in litigation to ensure that the best result is achieved through either the litigation process or alternative dispute resolution methods. Victor has been the driving force behind a number of the firm’s successes, offering strategic analysis to each client and the benefit and foresight of many years expertise.
VICTOR ADVISES IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS:
- Shareholder Disputes
- Commercial Litigation
- Defamation
- Misrepresentation
- Employment Law
- Debt Recovery
- Insolvency Law
- Negligence
- Building and Construction Law
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
In 1991, Victor was admitted as a practitioner of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and the High Court of Australia after taking the Solicitor’s Admission Board Examinations. Since his admission as a solicitor, Victor has been involved in a number of complex cases of broad compass. Some of Victor’s more notable cases are detailed below.
In 1992, in one of his first cases, Victor represented applicants in the Maralinga cases, who sought compensation following the findings made by the Royal Commission into British nuclear tests in Australia. Victor successfully obtained an order that the limitation period be significantly extended to enable the applicants’ claims to be maintained: Re Maureen Mary Southworth v Commonwealth of Australia [1992] FCA 153 (9 April 1992).
In 1994, Victor commenced his employment with Etheringtons.
In 1996, Victor represented workers in the widely reported unfair dismissal proceedings involving piggeries associated with former Prime Minister Paul Keating: Kenneth PURDUE Paul ELLISON Peter JACKSON v. BROWN AND HATTON GROUP PTY LIMITED (A.C.N. 003 573 537) [1996] IRCA 116 (18 March 1996).
In 1996, Victor was involved in a lengthy Inquiry into the Australian Postal Union Election, which resulted in orders that a fresh election be held on account of voting fraud: In the matter of an election for an office in the Communication Workers' Union of Australia Postal and Telecommunications Branch, New South Wales [1996] IRCA 207 (10 May 1996). These election Inquiry proceedings were also widely commented and reported on including regular articles in the Sydney Morning Herald, the Daily Telegraph together with a story on 60 Minutes and other current affair programs. In addition Paul Sheehan dedicated a chapter to these Inquiry proceedings “The Vote Eaters” in his best selling book Among The Barbarians. Submissions were also made to the Federal Government’s Joint House Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in relation to this election Inquiry.
Victor thereafter successfully obtained orders that Australia Post reinstate a worker following his unfair dismissal: Cook v Australia Post [1997] IRCA 84 (17 March 1997).
In 2000, Victor represented an applicant in the matter of Williams v Robinson & the Commonwealth of Australia. This was a claim brought in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission. This resulted in a record award in favour of the applicant on account of findings of sexual harassment.
In 2000, Victor became a Partner of Etheringtons.
In 2000, Victor also represented applicants in complex proceedings in the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales, where staff members sought damages against members of Parliament and the Speaker of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly for unfair contract: Frost v The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales [2000] NSWIRComm 70
Between 2001 and 2008, Victor has been involved in complex commercial litigation involving fraudulent transactions, matrimonial companies and the conduct of liquidators. Some of these cases are reported below.
In 2001, Victor successfully obtained orders allowing an applicant to take over the conduct of supreme court proceedings on behalf of a liquidator: BL & GY International Co. Ltd v Hypec Electronics Pty Ltd; Colin Anthony Mead v David Patrick Watson & Ors. [2001] NSWSC 705. In 2002, he successfully defended a company against a claim for over $7 million, on the grounds that the claim was based on fraudulent documents: BL & GY International Co Ltd v Hypec Electronics Pty Limited and 2 others [2002] NSWSC 38. In these proceedings, he obtained indemnity costs orders against non-parties to the litigation: BL & GY International Co Ltd v Hypec Electronics Pty Limited & Ors [2002] NSWSC 575. The Supreme Court Justice in this case noted that she had not encountered a case like this in all her time in practice (see par 42). This decision to order indemnity costs against a non party, was subsequently affirmed by the New South Wales Court of Appeal: Yang v Hypec Electronics Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) & 2 Ors [2003] NSWCA 181.
In 2003, Victor successfully obtained orders restraining a liquidator on the grounds that the liquidator acted unconscionably: Hypec Electronics Pty Limited (in liq) v Mead & Ors [2003] NSWSC 934. This decision was subsequently upheld by the New South Wales Court of Appeal: Hypec v Mead [2004] NSWCA 221. The Court of Appeal subsequently ordered the Liquidator to personally pay the costs of the litigation on an indemnity basis and without recourse to company assets: Mead v Watson as Liquidator for Hypec Electronics [2005] NSWCA 133.
Victor was also successful in an application to remove a court appointed liquidator on the grounds of misconduct: BL & GY v Hypec Electronics [2004] NSWSC 1119 (2 December 2004). The liquidator was also ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis. This was the first time since 1984 that a court appointed liquidator was removed on the grounds of misconduct. In addition, the Supreme Court ordered an Inquiry into the damage that the Liquidator caused the company as a result of his misconduct.
In 2006, Victor represented an applicant who successfully obtained declaratory orders requiring an insurer to indemnify a professional advisor insured under a policy of insurance: Mead v Allianz Australia Ltd [2006] NSWSC 366.
Between 1997 and 2008, Victor represented the applicant husband in one of the longest and most complicated cases in the history of the Family Court of Australia. This case resulted in orders that the wife be sentenced to 6 months imprisonment for contempt of court. These orders were reviewed by the Full Court of the High Court of Australia Mead v Mead [2007] HCA 25 and upheld by the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia: LGM & CAM (Contempt) [2008] FamCAFC 1.
Other notable litigation successes have included a complex defamation action where Victor represented plaintiffs in proceedings that involved the surreptitious publication of 17 articles. The section 7A jury trial alone lasted 3 weeks. In these proceedings the jury found that the publications contained 87 imputations. The defendant’s challenge of the jury’s findings were rejected by the New South Wales Court of Appeal: Richard Martin TORY v Michael MEGNA [2007] NSWCA 13. In these defamation proceedings, Victor also obtained an Anton Piller order ( a rare form of search warrant) against one of the defendants, where Victor was responsible for conducting the search on the defendant’s premises and reporting back to the Court with his findings. In these proceedings Victor also obtained orders concerning the Listening Devices Act and preliminary discovery orders. In addition Mareva (asset preservation or freezing) orders were also obtained against the defendants: Megna & anor v Marshall & anor [2005] NSWSC 1347, and a binding financial agreement entered into by one of the defendants was set aside: Megna & anor v Marshall & anor; Tory v Marshall & anor [2006] NSWSC 70.
Victor’s experience in complicated factual and legal matters across a broad range of areas of the law enables him to provide strategic direction and advice in complex matters.
