In over twenty years at Victorian Bar, Rohan has appeared in both the commercial and criminal fields of practice.
In the commercial jurisdiction, Rohan has conducted trials and hearings in all Victorian Courts, VCAT and the Federal Court of Australia. In this area, he has appeared in a wide range of civil matters, including Building and Construction, Water Act and Retail Tenancies matters in VCAT, Insolvency matters in both the Federal and Supreme Courts, and Contractual Disputes in the all State and Federal Courts.
In particular he has expertise in acting in Domestic Building Disputes in VCAT, representing both Owners and Builders in Hearings and Mediations on a regular basis. Rohan also appears regularly in Bankruptcy matters in the Federal Court, and Company Winding-Up proceedings in both the Federal Court and Supreme Court.
Whilst the majority of the most recent matters have been Building Disputes in VCAT, including a series of cases involving slab heave in respect to the construction of residences using the waffle pod slab method, he maintains his civil practice in the State and Federal Courts where he is briefed in a variety of matters, including Business and partnership disputes, Debt Recovery and Insolvency issues.
Rohan has also maintained a criminal practice by prosecuting on behalf of the Office of Public Prosecutions in the Magistrates and County Courts in Committal and Appeal Proceedings, as well as in the County and Supreme Courts on Bail and Surety Cases. He has also undertaken prosecutions on behalf of the Department of Primary Industries (Fisheries) in the County Court in respect to Appeals against sentences imposed under the Fisheries Act.
Over the entire time at the Bar he has undertaken Criminal Defence work in the Magistrates Court as well as in Appeals to the County Court. This has also included Road Traffic matters in both Courts.
As part of his practice, Rohan has appeared on behalf of Cray-fisherman and Abalone Divers in the Magistrates Court in contested Fisheries Act Breaches, and Pleas. In a number of these cases this has involved resisting applications by the Department of Primary Industries for Licence suspension and equipment forfeiture under the Fisheries Act.
SIGNIFICANT RECENT BUILDING CASES:
Watson v Richwall Pty Ltd, Trading as Cavalier Homes North-West (Building and Property)  VCAT 1191 5 Aug 15
Here Costs and Damages were awarded against the Builder in respect to the damage that resulted from drainage construction issues of a waffle pod slab, built allegedly under ASC 2870-1996. Rohan appeared as Counsel on behalf of the Owner.
Softley v Metricon Homes Pty Ltd (Building and Property)  VCAT 1502 2 Dec 2014
Here Costs and Damages for Demolition and Rebuild of the residence were awarded against the Builder in respect to the on-going damage that resulted from drainage construction issues of a waffle pod slab, built allegedly under ASC 2870-1996. Rohan appeared as Junior Counsel, led by Mr. Timothy Margetts QC on behalf of the Owner.
nb: This case has been the subject of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal by the Builder, and is awaiting the result of that Appeal at present.
Miami Beach Apartments Pty Ltd v Dona Homes (Vic) Pty Ltd (Domestic Building List) VCAT Ref: D857/2008, Order 11 April 2012
Melton Highway Developments Pty Ltd v Dona Homes (Vic) Pty Ltd (Domestic Building List) VCAT Ref: D858/2008, Order 11 April 2012
This case involved a dispute between the Owners/ Developers and the Builder over the construction of a 20 Unit Townhouse Development in respect to major Delays and Defects suffered over the life of the Project. The joint cases resulted in an award of damages for the Applicants in excess of $2.2 million plus costs. Rohan appeared as Junior Counsel at the Final Hearing, but was also briefed to undertake the pleading work in this case.
Edward Williams v Owners Corporation Number 10635 Case No: X01990196 Magistrates’ Court, 8 Dec 2011 (Unreported), per Magistrate Johnstone
Here Damages for Demolition and Costs were awarded after a 8 day Hearing, whereby the Court found for the Plaintiff, i.e.; that the neighbouring property, being a block of flats as managed by the Owners Corp, had caused the failure of a parapet wall by the planting of a number of trees within 30cm of this wall and that over a number of years this had undermined the structural integrity of that wall, eventually leading to its’ collapse.