Trial Advocate – Manny Conditsis

Solicitor – Natasha Konic

A very difficult 2 month trial won against the odds.

A significant quantity of pseudoephedrine powder and precursors such Hypophospheris Acid was allegedly found on our client’s premises by police. Manny Conditsis and Natasha Konic spent many hours pouring over the police video of the execution of the search warrant and we were able to establish several breaches of Best Practice in relation to the Standard Operating Procedures. The trial resulted in a ‘hung jury’ and we were able to persuade the DPP to drop the trial charges against our client.

It appears that some members of the jury accepted that the Hypophospheris Acid had been ’planted’ by the police. The various breaches during the search assisted in that result. It would seem that most of the jury also accepted that the pseudoephedrine powder was intended for our client’s Greyhound dog.

Solicitor Advocate – Samar Singh-Panwar

Even as a very young lawyer, Samar Singh-Panwar has had some impressive wins with the important legal consequences.

For example, in the year 2000 Samar personally appeared in the Supreme Court in an important legal argument about how goods that are converted should be valued.  He appeared against experienced barristers, and was successful.

The case is reported as Sinclair v Haynes [2000] NSW SC

Trial Advocate – Manny Conditsis

Our client was charged with the manslaughter of a young lady after she had shot him up with heroin and she then gave herself a hit. They both passed out. During the night the young lady died. Our client awoke and was sure she had died. He panicked and left the motel room. The police alleged that the young lady was likely not dead when our client left the motel room and that he should have called the police and/or an ambulance and that she might have survived or been revived had he done so.

At the Committal Hearing Manny Conditsis argued the Pathological evidence was lacking in that the estimate of the time of death was imprecise and consequently, it could not be proven that our client was wrong in his assessment that the young lady was already dead when he awoke and that the evidence could not establish that she may have been able to have been revived. The Magistrate agreed and dismissed the charge.

Solicitor Advocate – Samar Singh-Panwar

Samar Singh-Panwar has had many matters dismissed on the basis of mental health grounds.

For example, in 2008 Samar acted for a client who caused his victim to lose an eye during an assault.

Samar successfully argued for the matter to be dismissed on mental health grounds, despite the serious injuries suffered.

Trial Advocate – Manny Conditsis

A licensed builder who had a corporate licence, was taken to court by the Department of Fair Trading (DFT). The corporation had no money, and the DFT was seeking that the man personally pay an amount of over $70,000 for rectification work authorised by the DFT. The DFT had been doing this sort of thing for many years and it appeared that no one had previously, successfully argued that the DFT were not entitled to recover from the individual, in circumstances where a corporate licence was in place. The firm took that very argument to court and filed a Motion that the DFT’s claim be struck out; AND IT WAS!

Rodney Dawson

Mr Dawson has appeared for a number of objectors against substantial residential development in coastal areas on the Central Coast. In the main; these cases involve the loss of views by residents and a loss of amenity through overshadowing, noise and other issues related to high density living. A number of challenges were brought in the Court alleging that development consent for these high density residential developments were void by reason of failures in the process in the granting of consent. A successful outcome was achieved for the objectors by negotiating a form of development which was generally lower in height and preserved views and amenity.

Rodney Dawson

Mr Dawson appeared for a land owner of rural land who wished to build a dwelling house upon that land. The land was heavily treed and subject to a Development Control Plan which placed restrictions on where a house could be built. The Council refused development consent alleging, amongst other things, that the development could not proceed in the absence of a species impact statement because of the presence or potential presence of the yellow bellied glider. The land owner appealed to the Court and was able to demonstrate through the expert evidence gathered for the appeal that not only was a species impact statement unnecessary, but also the Development Control Plan did not prevent the house being built where the land owner wanted it and the appeal was upheld.

Rodney Dawson

Mr Dawson acted to defend a prosecution brought by the Council against a land owner for demolishing a building without consent. If convicted, the land owner could have faced substantial fines. The defence to the prosecution was that the act of demolishing a building was not development requiring consent, but rather it was prohibited development and the defendant had been wrongly charged. The Court upheld the defence and dismissed the charges and ordered costs to be paid by the Council. Leave to appeal was refused.

Manny Conditsis

The firm took over a Family Law case after the man had appeared for himself at a hearing in front of a Judge of the Family Court, when the Judge made unfavourable orders against the man. An appeal was lodged on behalf of the man to the Full Court of the Family Court (3 Judges heard the appeal). Manny Conditsis argued that the trial Judge had denied the man natural justice and procedural fairness and that the orders made by the trial Judge should be overturned. The man was successful in the appeal.

Trial Advocate – Manny Conditsis

Solicitor – Natasha Konic

An employer was charged with indecently assaulting one of his female staff. At the trial, there were many problems with the credibility of the female staff member. After she gave her evidence and before she was even cross examined, Manny Conditsis requested that the DPP withdraw the charges against the employer. The DPP agreed and the charge was dismissed.