DOCSLIB.ORG

Litigation Experience

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Dr. John Scheirs Litigation Experience 2002-Present Legal Firm Nature of Job Anderson Rice Lawyers , Heat Seal Failures of Rice Bags Level 10, 555 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000. Australian Government Solicitor, Biodegradability of disposable nappies HOBART TAS 7001 Clayton Utz, 333 Collins Street, Polypropylene Geomembrane failure Melbourne VIC 3000 Clayton Utz, 333 Collins Street, MDPE Gas pipe failure (squeeze off) Melbourne VIC 3000 Corrs Chambers Westgarth, Bourke Biodegradability of PE-starch films Place, 600 Bourke Street, Melbourne VIC 3000 Crawford & Company (Aust) Pty Ltd Failure analysis of crosslinked The Tea House, Level 1, 28 Clarendon polyethylene water pipes Street, Melbourne VIC Crawford & Company (Aust) Pty Ltd Failure analysis of Polyacetal Automotive The Tea House, Level 1, 28 Clarendon Door Mechanism Plate Street, Melbourne VIC Crawford & Company (Aust) Pty Ltd Failure Analysis and Investigation of The Tea House, Level 1, 28 Clarendon Yogurt Tubes Street, Melbourne VIC Crawford & Company (Aust) Pty Ltd Failure Analysis of PVC Water Filer The Tea House, Level 1, 28 Clarendon Housing Street, Melbourne VIC Crawford & Company (Aust) Pty Ltd Failure analysis of flat bread pouches The Tea House, Level 1, 28 Clarendon Street, Melbourne VIC Crawford & Company (Aust) Pty Ltd Failure analysis of barrier antipasto The Tea House, Level 1, 28 Clarendon thermoformed trays Street, Melbourne VIC Crawford & Company (Aust) Pty Ltd Failure analysis of leaking Indian curry The Tea House, Level 1, 28 Clarendon sauce pouches Street, Melbourne VIC Crawford & Company (Aust) Pty Ltd Analysis of failure of adhesive of foam The Tea House, Level 1, 28 Clarendon underlay to wooden floor boards Street, Melbourne VIC Davies Collison Cave Solicitors Pty Ltd Thermoformability of Plastic 1 Nicholson Street , Melbourne VIC 3000 Deacons, Level 24, 385 Bourke Street, Failure of fPP Grain Covers Melbourne VIC 3000 Deacons, Level 24, 385 Bourke Street, Failure of Cracked Nitrile Rubber Liner Melbourne VIC 3000 Deacons Lawyers, Failure of PP-R water pipe Level 17, 175 Eagle Street, Brisbane QLD 4000 Ebsworth & Ebsworth, Failure of Blow Moulded HDPE Pool GPO Box 4542, Filters Melbourne UNSW Global Pty Limited Failure of Plastic Exercise Balls Freehills, Failure of Jumping Castle Material Level 38, Central Plaza One, 345 Queen Street, Brisbane QLD 4000 Freehills, 101 Collins St., Failure of Plastic Containers for Organic Melbourne, VIC 3000, GPO Box 128A, Liquid Peroxide Melbourne Gadens Lawyers, GPO Box 129, Failure of ASA Pool Fence Brisbane 4001 Gilshenan & Luton Lawyers Patent dispute involving bubble wrap Brisbane Queensland 4001 insulation Louis Gross & Associates, Barristers & Oxo-degradable Nappy Sacks Solicitors, Level 17, 390 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC 3004 LegalIT Lawyer, Level 30, AMP Place, Perforated PVC film 10 Eagle Street, Brisbane, Qld 4001 Mallesons Stephen Jaques, Failure of Plastic Truck Air Intake Level 50, Bourke Place, 600 Bourke St., Melbourne VIC 3000 Mallesons Stephen Jaques Failure of Gastric Lap Band Level 60, Governor Phillip Tower, 1 Farrer Place, SYDNEY, NSW Mark Hodges, Solicitor & Attorney, Failure of Fibreglass Composite Water Level 1, Lift Muffler 154 Elizabeth St., Sydney NSW Meerkin & Apel Recycling Process for Medical Waste Lawyers, 46 Caroline Street, South Yarra Vic 3141 Middletons Lawyers, Failure of Hair Cream tubes Level 29, 200 Queen St, Melbourne VIC 3000 Middletons Lawyers, Failure of HDPE liner in Uranium SX Level 29, 200 Queen St, Melbourne VIC plant 3000 Minter Ellison Lawyers, GPO BOX 1272 Failure of ABS Water Filter Housing Adelaide SA 5001 Minter Ellison Lawyers Failure of Nitrile rubber tank liner Rialto Towers, 525 Collins Street., Melbourne VIC 3000 Moray & Agnew Solicitors, Failure of Nitrile rubber tank liner Level 8, 440 Collins Street, Melbourne VIC 3000 Trade Marks Attorney Composition of Polyurethane glove Norton Gledhill Commercial Lawyers, Level 23, 459 Collins Street Melbourne Vic 3000 Peter Black & Associates Failure of HIPS Layer Pads Level 8 114 William Street, MELBOURNE VIC 3000 Phillips Fox, 120 Collins Street, Failure of Flexible PP Liner Melbourne 3000 Phillips Fox, 120 Collins Street, Failure of Epoxy Phenolic Can Coating Melbourne 3000 Piper Alderman Lawyers, Cause of Defects in Blown Film Level 24, 385 Bourke Street, Melbourne VIC 3000 Piper Alderman Solicitors, Defects in Rotomolded Polyethylene Level 24, 385 Bourke Street, DX 30829 Water Tanks Collins Street Melbourne Phillips Ormonde Fitzpatrick, Failure of Corian Tables 367 Collins St., Melbourne 3000 Trivett Keating Solicitors, PO Box 678, Failure of EPDM tank liner Wodonga VIC 3689 NSG Expert Opinion Services, Rupert Failure of Recycled Plastic Irrigation Myers Building, Pipe Gate 14, Barker Street, UNSW, SYDNEY, 2052 Expert Opinion Services , A division of Failure of PVC/nitrile solar heating New South Global Pty Limited, Rupert collectors Myers Building UNSW NSW 2052 DX 957 SYDNEY NSG Expert Opinion Services, Rupert Failure of Polyethylene-aluminium foil Myers Building, roofing insulation Gate 14, Barker Street, UNSW, SYDNEY, 2052 UNISEARCH LIMITED, Rupert Myers Failure of Rubber Automotive Tyre Building, Gate 14, Barker Street, UNSW, SYDNEY, 2052 Wotton Kearney, Level 13 Failure analysis of polycarbonate water 28 O'Connell Street, DX 10465, Sydney bottles NSW 2000 .
Recommended publications
  • Little Action on Demolition Dust by Shine Dighe Undertook a Site Visit and Confi Rmed There Th E Construction of Melbourne’S Was Excessive Dust

    Little Action on Demolition Dust by Shine Dighe Undertook a Site Visit and Confi Rmed There Th E Construction of Melbourne’S Was Excessive Dust

    FOR THE MONTHS OF DECEMBER 2014 & JANUARY 2015 ISSUE 05 FREE WWW.CBDNEWS.COM.AU Food Events Nightlife LUNCH TIME 12 AFTER WORK 13 THE WEEKEND 14 FOODIE'S PARADISE GIRL POWER PALACE PROTEST CEO REFLECTS page 2 page 4 page 5 page 7 Little action on demolition dust By Shine Dighe undertook a site visit and confi rmed there Th e construction of Melbourne’s was excessive dust. largest-ever residential Th e demolition company, Guilfoyles, accepted this and agreed to get more hoses development on the former Age for the site. She again called site services on newspaper site in Spencer St September 9 and made a further complaint, and was informed that a notice to comply is causing serious disruptions would be issued, though it was never issued. and health problems to She said council told her it did not have an residents and businesses. environmental health team and that this was the responsibility of the EPA. Residents are frustrated that no one is Guilfoyles does not intend to contact taking responsibility for the air quality and it local residents to arrange a clean-up of appears the authorities are passing the buck. their properties until the construction is Residents, restaurants, shops and even bus completed. shelters are all bearing the brunt of the dust. Ms Tench contacted Guilfoyles requesting Echoing their problems, 270 King St building that it arrange regular cleaning until the manager Terry McKenzie, said: “We are demolition was completed but it has not suff ering from sore throats, dry eyes and done so.
  • LIV YOUNG LAWYERS LIV Seasonal Clerkship and Traineeship

    LIV YOUNG LAWYERS LIV Seasonal Clerkship and Traineeship

    LIV YOUNG LAWYERS LIV Seasonal Clerkship and Traineeship Guideline Signatories The following law firms and legal organisations are signatories to the LIV Seasonal Clerkship and/or the LIV Traineeship Guidelines 2020. Candidates are advised to please check each individual law firm or organisation via their website to find out if they are accepting applications for seasonal clerkships or traineeships in 2020. This list was last updated in August 2020. SIGNATORY FIRMS ADDRESS TRAINEESHIP SEASONAL CLERKSHIP GUIDELINES GUIDELINES Allens Level 37, 101 Collins Street, MELBOURNE 3000 Yes Yes Arnold Bloch Leibler Level 21, 333 Collins Street, MELBOURNE 3000 Yes Yes Ashurst Australia Level 26, 181 William Street, MELBOURNE 3000 Yes Yes Baker & McKenzie Level 19, 181 William St, MELBOURNE 3000 Yes Yes Best Hooper 563 Little Lonsdale Street, MELBOURNE 3000 Yes No BJT Legal 38 Lydiard Street South, BALLARAT 3350 Yes Yes Carbone Lawyers 302 King Street, MELBOURNE 3000 Yes No Clarendon Lawyers Level 29, 55 Collins Street, MELBOURNE 3000 Yes Yes Clarke & Barwood Lawyers 61-65 Gellibrand Street, COLAC 3250 Yes Yes Clayton Utz Level 18, 333 Collins Street, MELBOURNE 3000 Yes Yes Colin Biggers and Paisley Level 23, 181 William Street, MELBOURNE 3000 Yes No Lawyers Corrs Chambers Westgarth Bourke Place, Level 36, 600 Bourke Street, Yes Yes MELBOURNE 3000 Coulter Roache Level 1, 235 Ryrie Street, GEELONG 3220 No Yes Davis Lawyers 15/200 Queen Street, MELBOURNE 3000 Yes No DTF Legal, Victorian Dept of Level 7, 1 Macarthur Street, EAST MEBOURNE No No Treasury
  • Review of Jacobs' Report

    Review of Jacobs' Report

    GDFS.0001.002.0001 27 November 2015 HAZELWOOD MINE FIRE SECOND INQUIRY REVIEW OF JACOBS' REPORT Submitted to: King & Wood Mallesons Level 50, Bourke Place 600 Bourke Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Report Number. 1542819-001-R-Rev0 Distribution: REPORT 1 Copy - King & Wood Mallesons 1 Copy - Golder Associates Pty Ltd GDFS.0001.002.0002 HAZELWOOD MINE FIRE SECOND INQUIRY Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Engagement ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Summary of qualifications and experience...................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Questions ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Relied Upon Information .................................................................................................................................. 3 2.0 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 3 2.1 Question 1 – Approved Final Rehabilitation Model ......................................................................................... 3 2.2 Question 2 – Other Practical Alternatives
  • CTBUH Research Paper Title: the Post-Miesian Office Tower and The

    CTBUH Research Paper Title: the Post-Miesian Office Tower and The

    CTBUH Research Paper ctbuh.org/papers Title: The Post-Miesian Office Tower and the Global Issue of Its Interpretation Author: Giorgio Marfella, University of Melbourne Subjects: Architectural/Design History, Theory & Criticism Urban Design Keywords: Development Form Height Historic Context Office Urban Planning Publication Date: 2018 Original Publication: International Journal of High-Rise Buildings Volume 7 Number 2 Paper Type: 1. Book chapter/Part chapter 2. Journal paper 3. Conference proceeding 4. Unpublished conference paper 5. Magazine article 6. Unpublished © Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat / Giorgio Marfella International Journal of High-Rise Buildings International Journal of June 2018, Vol 7, No 2, 127-140 High-Rise Buildings https://doi.org/10.21022/IJHRB.2018.7.2.127 www.ctbuh-korea.org/ijhrb/index.php The Post-Miesian Office Tower and the Global Issue of Its Interpretation Giorgio Marfella† Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, University of Melbourne, Australia Abstract The skylines of many cities worldwide are still defined by the dominant and ubiquitous office blocks of the twentieth century. While there is consensus stating that future tall building typologies should depart substantially from these past models, the inheritance of large and obsolete tall office building stocks presents a problem of global significance. Too old for present corporate models, but too new for gaining public historical importance, the twentieth-century office tower is a typology under threat of extinction. However, the need for a culturally informed strategy of preservation for that generation of tall buildings is seldom advocated. Drawing evidence from the case of Melbourne, Australia, this article presents a methodological pathway to overcome pitfalls of memory and interpretation, which commonly prevent an unbiased assessment of the value and urban contribution of late-twentieth-century skyscrapers.