Construction Disputes

Construction Disputes - Australia

Reducing risk and resolving disputes optimally

Leading construction companies, real estate developers, project sponsors and engineering firms rely on King & Wood Mallesons to help manage risk and successfully resolve disputes and disruptive challenges to their business and projects - wherever practicable, without resort to litigation.

Our team in Australia is known for its ability to identify issues in a potential dispute early and provide robust and innovative solutions.  We have a reputation for resolving construction and real estate disputes quickly and cost effectively, avoiding litigation and arbitration where possible and using mediation, conciliation, early neutral evaluation and direct negotiation.

This approach has seen us successfully resolve construction and real estate disputes involving road, rail, stadium, energy, mining, airport, port, pipeline, dredging, power, telecommunications, defence, process plant, tunnelling, ticketing, water, waste, commercial, industrial and residential projects.

We take a commercial approach to dispute resolution, starting with a clear understanding of objectives and ending with a cost-effective solution which optimises your position.

"King & Wood Mallesons fields a team of ‘strategic litigators that is highly conscious of, and responsive to, its clients’ needs"

Chambers Asia-Pacific – Dispute Resolution

We have a full team specialising in this area.

Discover our latest insights into legal issues affecting your business

Australian Government announces inquiry into the use of cladding, following the Grenfell disaster and reports that a number of buildings are suspected of non-compliant building materials.

04 July 2017

A US$12.35 million award has unwittingly become caught between the United States and Australian insolvency regimes.

04 October 2016

The ability to enforce an arbitration award is key - we explore your options and key pitfalls.

15 September 2016

Parties doing business with foreign States should think carefully about the doctrine of state immunity.

15 September 2016