Adam Segal has a broad commercial practice, specialising in banking and insolvency, Corporations and property litigation. Prior to coming to the bar, Adam worked as a solicitor in Melbourne and in London. Adam was a Senior Associate at Mallesons Stephen Jaques (now King & Wood Mallesons) and Legal Counsel for Barclays Bank PLC.
Adam is qualified mediator, having completed the Victorian Bar Lawyers Mediation Certificate in 2020.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under the Professional Standards Legislation
- Banking & Finance
- Consumer Law
- Contractual Disputes
- Corporate Insolvency
- Corporations & Securities
- Equity & Trusts
- Real Property
- Residential & Retail Tenancies
- Sports Law
- Wills & Probate
- Common Law
- Professional Negligence
Bachelor of Economics
Bachelor of Laws (Hons)
State and Territory Courts and Tribunals
Federal Court of Australia
High Court of Australia
Notable cases which Adam has appeared in recently include:
Fernandez v EJ Industries Ltd  VSCA 139 - appeared in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria at the hearing of an application for leave to set aside summary judgment. The application was successfully resisted on the basis that, inter alia, the alternative claim for money had and received was not inconsistent with the contractual loan arrangements applying the principles in Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd and Lumbers v W Cook Builders Pty Ltd (in liq).
Ganesh v National Australia Bank Ltd  VSCA 39 - appeared in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria at the hearing of an application for leave to set aside an order dismissing the proceeding on the grounds that a counterclaim was still on foot at the time that the plaintiff sought to discontinue its claim against the defendants.
Iloski v National Australia Bank Ltd  VCAT 124 – appeared in VCAT to successfully resist an application for an extension of time to bring an application under section 120 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 to re-open an order on the basis that the application had a reasonable excuse for not attending at the hearing.
Queenfield v Gordon Finance Pty Ltd & Ors  VSC 857 – appeared with Hamish Austin QC in the Supreme Court of Victoria to successfully defend a debt claim on the basis that the parties shared a common intention which required the Sale of Units Deed to be rectified accordingly. At the time the Sale of Units Deed was executed, the Trustee’s books recorded various intercompany loans. The claim was brought by the Trustee of a Unit Trust against a unitholder and a related party. The Court was also required to consider a defence based on conventional estoppel and whether, based on pre-contractual negotiations, the plaintiff should be estopped from demanding repayment of the debts.
Gordon Nominees Pty Ltd v JPA Finance Pty Ltd  HCATrans 248 - appeared with Jonathan Evans QC in the High Court of Australia at the hearing of an application for special leave on the basis that the loss of the option under a Call Option Deed constituted circumstances where equity would grant relief against forfeiture and/or relief on the basis that the termination was penal in nature.
Pages Property Investments Pty Ltd v Boros  NSWSC 1778 – appeared in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in respect of various applications for production of documents sought under subpoena.
JPA Finance Pty Ltd v Gordon Nominees Pty Ltd  VSC 171 and  VSCA 159 – appeared with Jonathan Evans QC in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (and in the Supreme Court of Victoria) in relation to whether a Call Option Deed to purchase units in a Unit Trust have been terminated where there was an issue as to whether the notice of termination had been given in accordance with the notice requirements in the Deed and if it had been terminated, whether the loss of the option constituted circumstances where equity would grant relief against forfeiture and/or relief on the basis that the termination was penal in nature.
Iloski v National Australia Bank Ltd  VCAT 1039 – appeared in VCAT on behalf of the bank to successfully resist an application that the bank had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and that it had unlawfully sold a property in its capacity as mortgagee in possession. Grace Christian Chapel v Canaan Holdings Pty Ltd  VSC 5 – appeared in the Supreme Court of Victoria to successfully resist an application for security for costs where the defendant sought additional security. The critical issue in the application was whether the set off and counterclaim was a counter-attack on a different front, so that the defendant was effectively in the position of a plaintiff in respect of those claims.
Ganesh v National Australia Bank Ltd  VSCA 224 – appeared in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria to successfully resist an application for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal. The substantive proceeding concerned the enforcement of various mortgage securities.
Rambaldi v Meletsis, in the matter of Karas (Bankrupt)  FCA 791 - the court was required to consider whether the trustees of a bankrupt estate had the power to acquire assigned claims. Adam appeared with Jim Peters QC in the Federal Court of Australia to successfully obtain declarations from the Court that the trustees in bankruptcy had power to acquire claims from a liquidator as specified in a deed of assignment and further that the trustees were justified, in the proper exercise of their discretion in the administration of the bankrupt estate, in acquiring the causes of action from the liquidator as specified in the deed of assignment. The decision is one of the first to consider the September 2017 insolvency law reforms and highlights the manner in which insolvency practitioners may approach causes of action.
Pages Property Investments Pty Ltd v Boros  NSWCA 269 and  NSWSC 986 – appeared with Andrew Tokley SC in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (and in the NSWSC) in relation to the defendant’s summons to dismiss the proceeding as an abuse of process where it is alleged that the predominant motive in bringing and maintaining the proceeding was for a collateral advantage.
HunterStone Pty Ltd (in liq) & Ors v Azad Mortazavi & Anor  VSC 261 - appeared for the liquidators to successfully resist an application for dismissal for want of prosecution pursuant to Rule 24.05 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure Rules) 2015 (Vic)
TL Rentals Pty Ltd v Youth on Call Pty Ltd  VSC 105 – appeared on behalf of an equitable mortgagee at the hearing of an application for an equitable injunction to restrain the Registrar of Titles from registering a mortgage and in relation to an application under s90(2) of the Transfer of Land Act 1958.
BKA Practice Co Pty Ltd trading as Belleli King & Associates v Viking Group Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq) & Anor  VSC 699 – appeared on behalf of the respondents to resist an appeal from orders granting leave to amend the name of the defendant after the time for commencing proceedings under s588FF(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 had expired on the basis that there had been a mistake in the name of the defendant.
Vasco Investments Ltd v Morgan Stanley Australia Ltd (2014) 108 IPR 52 – appeared with Michael Jones SC in the Supreme Court of Victoria in relation to a claim for breach of confidential information as well as quantum meruit for services provided by an advisory firm relating to the plan for the recapitalisation of the Orchard property funds management business.
Stamford Aus-Trade & Press Pty Ltd v Aloysius David Pty Ltd & Anor  VSC 324 – appeared with Michael Pearce SC in the Supreme Court of Victoria in relation to a claim to beneficial entitlement to funds in a bank account by way of an express trust, alternatively a Quistclose trust. Orders had earlier been obtained by way of freezing order to preserve the funds in the bank account. See also Stamford Aus-Trade & Press Pty Ltd v Aloysius David Pty Ltd & Anor (No 2)  VSC 436. The decision was overturned on appeal to the Court of Appeal – See Melbourne Orthopaedic Group Pty Ltd v Stamford Aus-Trade & Press Pty Ltd  VSCA 150.
Vasudevan & Ors v Becon Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd & Anor (2014) 41 VR 445 – appeared with Philip Crutchfield QC in the Victorian Court of Appeal on behalf of the respondent to the appellants’ (liquidators) application that the execution of a deed of settlement and a mortgage was an unreasonable director-related transaction within the meaning of s588FDA of the Corporations Act 2001. The respondent’s submission that the transaction was not within the meaning of the phrase “on behalf of, or for the benefit of” the director of the insolvent company was overturned on appeal.
Chan v Four C Realty Pty Ltd (in liq) (2013) 95 ACSR 666 and also  FCA 928 appeared with Michael Wyles SC on behalf of the liquidators of Four C Realty Pty Ltd (in liq) in the Federal Court of Australia in relation to application made under s471B, 477(2B) and 477(6) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). At issue was whether the applicant and the liquidators of the company had entered into a binding and enforceable contract to purchase the business assets of the company and if so, whether the Court should approve, nunc pro tunc, the entry by the liquidators of that contract.
Norman v National Australia Bank Ltd  HCATrans 171: appeared for the respondent (NAB) in the High Court of Australia to successfully resist an application for a stay of execution of judgment pending the special leave application. The application for special leave to appeal was subsequently dismissed with costs  HCASL 194.
For further information on Adam's recent cases, please click here.