• November 7, 2017 in Criminal Law, Litigation, Personal Law

    Can police search you in public without a warrant?

    You are walking down the street in Cavill Avenue, and a police officer pulls you aside and advises you that they are conducting a search of you – what can you do?

    When can police search you without a warrant?

    The starting position is that police have no general power to search anyone on the off chance of finding something incriminating. Thus, with limited exception, police have no right to search you.

    To perform a warrantless search of a person in Queensland in public, the police officer/s conducting the search must reasonably suspect any of the prescribed circumstances outlined in section 30 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000. There are many prescribed circumstances, but for the purpose of this article, we will focus on possession of dangerous drugs, which is a commonly relied upon reason for conducting warrantless searches.

    The test for whether the search will be lawful comes down to whether or not there were grounds capable of supporting a reasonable suspicion that a person is in possession of dangerous drugs. What this means is a suspicion has to be honestly held and underpinned by sufficient facts and circumstances to show this belief at the time of conducting the search. The reasonableness of the search is not determined by what is found or happens after, rather it is determined by the actual state of the police officer/s mind at the time of performing the search.

    An example of the facts police will rely on to search someone suspected of possessing dangerous drugs is:

    • In regards to appearance – at the time of the search the person is unsteady on feet, pupils dilated, sweating, licking their lips, shaking; and/or
    • a sniffer dog indicates the existence of dangerous drugs.


    When police are conducting a search without a warrant, they are entitled to search anything in a person’s possession (e.g. bag) for dangerous drugs.

    What can you do if police perform a search of you without a warrant?

    1. Provide your name and address, however, politely say that you’re unwilling to answer any further questions
    2. Ask if they have a warrant to perform the search.

    See if someone can record what your appearance is at the time, and specifically ask the police officer/s what facts and circumstances gave rise to them conducting the search. This evidence may be able to be used at a pre-trial hearing to determine if any incriminating evidence found can be excluded on public policy grounds.

    Please contact Patrick Quinn or Hugh Tait at Creevey Russell Lawyers on (07) 3009 6555 for further information.

  • October 27, 2017 in Agricultural Law, Litigation


    Creevey Russell Lawyers are pleased to announce that they now have funding to proceed with this action and will be hosting a Shattercane information evening in their Toowoomba office for those farmers already involved and any farmers looking to be involved in this class action.


    If you have suffered loss or damage from Shattercane  – Come along for an informative discussion and hear about the recent progression of the case from Dan Creevey and the team.

    This is your chance to find out more about Shattercane, what the Class Action means to you and how we can help your situation.

    Toowoomba Creevey Russell Office
    580 Ruthven Street
    9th November 2017 – 5.30pm to 7.30pm
    Refreshments provided

    RSVP’s ESSENTIAL – Click Here or call 07 4617 8777

  • August 23, 2017 in Agricultural Law, Litigation

    Class Actions Level Playing Field

    Legislative changes in Queensland which have established a regime for conducting class actions provide plaintiffs with a more level playing field to seek justice, says leading legal firm Creevey Russell Lawyers.

    The Queensland law firm has been among the first to take advantage of recent amendments to the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 with the launch of its class action against Advanta Seeds Pty Ltd, previously trading as Pacific Seeds, on behalf of growers in Queensland and NSW who have had sorghum contaminated with shattercane seed.

    Creevey Russell’s Principal Dan Creevey said in many cases a class action – a claim arising from seven or more claimants against the same defendant and handled as a rule on a ‘no win, no fee basis’ – is the only option many plaintiffs have to seek redress from the courts.

    “Class actions allows plaintiffs to pursue claims even if the quantum of the claim is not that great,” he said. “A class action lawsuit allows plaintiffs to pursue a worthy cause on principle. For example, a bank may be adding hidden fees to customers’ accounts. While the amount of the claim for the individual may not warrant the legal fees for one plaintiff, a class action allows such litigants to seek justice.”

    Mr Creevey said another advantage to a class action is a judgment or settlement against the defendant can result in a fairer distribution to the plaintiffs.

    “If many plaintiffs sue the defendant the ‘first in’ plaintiffs may be the only ones who receive damages,” he said. “Class actions provide more options for an equitable distribution of the judgment/settlement moneys.

    “Class actions also benefit the judicial system. The case is managed and determined by one judge in one court. That judge ensures that the matter progresses as quickly as possible and that it is given a certain level of priority and decisions are made in the interests of justice.”

    Further inquiries:

    Dan Creevey (07) 4617 8777

    About Creevey Russell Lawyers

    Creevey Russell Lawyers is a full service law firm which operates primarily from our Brisbane practice, with the capacity to provide superior legal services to western Queensland through our Toowoomba practiceCreevey Russell Lawyers deliver results to a variety of clients including developers, corporations, accountants, liquidators and private clientele

  • June 22, 2017 in Agricultural Law, Litigation

    Update on Shattercane Class Action

    Mallonland Pty Ltd v Advanta Seeds Pty Ltd

    Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane Representative Proceeding 4103/17



    In April 2017, Creevey Russell Lawyers launched Queensland’s first class action against Advanta Seeds Pty Ltd. Advanta previously traded under the name Pacific Seeds and will be well known to many sorghum growers.

    What it’s all about

    The claim relates to the supply of grain sorghum seed for planting called MR43 Elite which was contaminated with shattercane seed.

    The Advanta class action presents growers with the most comprehensive and cost-effective chance of recovering compensation for reduced yields over land infected with shattercane.

    You may be entitled to a part of any proceeds

    The claim is made on behalf of all those people who between 2010 and 2014 either conducted a business in Queensland or New South Wales for the planting and commercial cultivation and sale of sorghum and used MR43 seed purchased from Advanta to plant and cultivate that sorghum or alternatively are owners of land on which MR43 seed was planted.

    If you are one of these people and you have been impacted by shattercane, you will be entitled to a share of any damages obtained from Advanta. This is at no cost or risk to you, but we need to know who you are to advance your claim.

    New South Wales Growers

    The claim has been amended to include New South Wales growers who have also been effected by Shattercane.   Dan Creevey will be travelling to the Liverpool Plains area in New South Wales in the near future to meet with effected growers on their properties.  Further details will be provided shortly.

    Current Status and updates

    All updates and court documents filed in this matter to date, including a copy of the Claim and Statement of Claim, Defence and Reply can be found on the Creevey Russell Lawyers website at www.creeveyrussell.com.au/shattercane-class-action/.

    What you need to do

    If you purchased or planted MR43 seed between 2010 and 2014 and have been infected with shattercane , you need to make yourself known to us. We can then advise you whether you will be entitled to a share of any final payment obtained from Advanta. There is no risk or cost for you in doing so. The only risk is that you do not get in contact with us and consequentially miss out on a payment that could otherwise be made to you.

    To advance things, please contact Dan Creevey on 07 4617 8777, or register your interest at www.creeveyrussell.com.au/shattercane-class-action/.

    Information Evening

    Creevey Russell Lawyers will be hosting an information evening in their Toowoomba offices on 18 July 2017 for those farmers already involved and any farmers looking to be involved in this class action. 

    Further information and invitations will be sent out and posted on the website shortly.

    Dan Creevey
    Creevey Russell Lawyers
    Ph: 07 4617 8777


  • May 31, 2017 in Litigation

    BCIPA – The Building and Construction Industry Payments Act

    The Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (the ‘Act’) can be an effective tool for eliciting payment due under a construction contract, in a time and cost effective way, if used correctly. Depending on the amount of the claim and how the adjudication progresses, the process between payment claim and adjudication decision is capable of taking as little as 8 weeks.

    Starting the process is as simple as issuing your invoice as a ‘payment claim’ pursuant to the Act.


    Generally, the adjudication process is as follows:

     Applicant serves Payment Claim
    Respondent serves Payment Schedule
    Applicant lodges Adjudication Application
    Respondent serves Adjudication Response
    Applicant serves Reply (only in some circumstances)
    Adjudication Decision
    Filing of decision as a judgment for a debt
    Enforcement of Judgment


    We note there are factors which may alter the above process. For example, if a payment schedule is not received a notice must be served on the respondent before lodging an adjudication application.

    Whilst the Act is capable of streamlining the process for recovering unpaid invoices, it contains specific requirements and time frames for every step of the process and should these not be strictly adhered to the adjudicator is unable to award payment to you.

    Further, before lodging an adjudication application, you should consider whether a charge pursuant to the Subcontractors Charges Act 1974 would be a more effective way to secure payment. If the dispute has already gone to adjudication you may be precluded from exercising your rights by way of charge.

    To discuss further, please contact Alexandria Geokas on 07 3009 6555.

    Alexandria Geokas
    Creevey Russell Lawyers
    07 3009 6555


  • March 15, 2017 in Agricultural Law, Litigation

    Agricultural Law : Shattercane Problems?

    Are you a sorghum grower impacted by Shattercane?  Is Shattercane costing you time and money to control? Are you concerned about the financial impact on you and the value of your property?

    If you purchased seed contaminated with Shattercane seed then you may have a claim to financial compensation.

    Creevey Russell Lawyers are presently preparing a class action for growers affected by this problem.

    If you have Shattercane problems, please contact Dan Creevey for a no obligation and free of charge discussion about whether you may have a claim. 
    Call us on 07 4617 8777 
    or email

    Agricultural Law Team

  • March 14, 2017 in Agricultural Law, Commercial Law, Litigation, Personal Law, Property Law

    Creevey Russell Lawyers – Regional Queensland Struggling for Services

    Press Release 14 March 2017

    Regional Queensland towns are struggling through lack of services and support with all areas needing greater understanding from Government, says leading legal firm Creevey Russell Lawyers.

    The firm’s Principal Dan Creevey has just completed a two-week regional road trip to offer free consultations with community members on any legal or other issue they may be experiencing.

    Mr Creevey’s 3000klm tour stretched from Toowoomba to Middleton and back and included the Central West and Central Highlands communities of Roma, Charleville, Longreach, Winton, Barcaldine, Emerald, Rolleston, Moura and Taroom.

    “Country towns are really struggling with lack of services and lack of support is extremely apparent,” said Mr Creevey, who plans to make the regional road trips regularly.

    “They just want a greater understanding of their situation from authorities. Each area has its unique issues whether it be flood mitigation, prickly trees, bad roads or artesian water problems.”

    Mr Creevey said clients and contacts were pleased to see a regional law firm in their town experiencing their situation first hand.

    “We take great pride in the fact that Creevey Russell Lawyers is a rural and regional firm and we are always looking to give back to those communities,” Mr Creevey said.

    “There is clearly a demand for us to be in our clients’ country and we will keep coming back. We can offer a wide variety of services to our clients, with expertise in areas of Agricultural Law, Commercial Law, Criminal Law, Property Law, Wills & Estates, Succession Planning, Family Law and Personal Law.

    “It is no secret that many of the state’s regional communities have been doing it tough for many years due to a wide range of economic and environmental factors.

    “The purpose of our regional tour was to connect with the people in these communities and listen to their concerns. We are already planning our next road trip for later in the year.”

    If you would like to get in touch with Dan Creevey – or call 07 4617 8777

    Dan Creevey
    Creevey Russell Lawyers

  • March 3, 2017 in Agricultural Law, Commercial Law, Litigation, Personal Law, Property Law

    Dan Creevey’s Western Qld Road Trip – Photos from the road – Bringing Expert Legal Services to the Bush

    Dan Creevey hits the road for 2 weeks to bring Expert Legal Advice to Western Queensland on his first Road trip. Travelling to Roma, Mitchell, Charleville, Augathella, Tambo, Barcaldine, Longreach, Winton, Emerald, Rolleston, Moura, Taroom, Wandoan and everywhere in between. Dan is offering no obligation discussions with anyone facing any legal issues in these areas. Call 07 4617 8777 if you think Dan can help you.

  • January 10, 2017 in Agricultural Law, Commercial Law, Litigation, Personal Law, Property Law

    Dan Creevey – Western Qld Legal Road Trip

    Bringing Legal Services to the Bush


    27 Feb to 13 March 2017

    Our firm is coming to YOU.






    Creevey Russell Lawyers is a trusted, professional and local firm.

    We are bringing legal services to the bush. Dan Creevey, founding partner at Creevey Russell Lawyers, is known for his experience, tenacity and honesty. Dan is hitting the road on a Western Road Trip and providing services for any legal matter you may be experiencing.


    To meet with Dan for a no – obligation discussion about your legal matter, please call 07 4617 8777 or email

    At Creevey Russell Lawyers, we’ll listen, we’ll understand and we’ll look after you.


    Lawyers Brisbane
    Lawyers Toowoomba
    Lawyers Roma

  • December 8, 2016 in Litigation

    Litigation Law : Court of Appeal Ends Decade Long Legal Saga for Gaming Heir

    Queensland’s Court of Appeal has ended a legal litigation dispute involving an heir to the Aristocrat gaming machine empire which lasted more than a decade.

    The appeal court  ruled in favour of landmark Cairns venue Gilligan’s Backpacker Hotel & Resort and its former owner Christian Ainsworth in the long running litigation dispute with a now defunct catering company.

    Creevey Russell Lawyers Principal Dan Creevey said the firm represented Mr Ainsworth, the youngest son of gaming star and Aristocrat founder Len Ainsworth, in the decade long saga which was resolved when the Court of Appeal sitting in Brisbane upheld the appeal by Gilligan’s and Mr Ainsworth against Mad Dogs Pty Ltd.

    “This Court of Appeal decision was a tremendous victory for Gilligan’s and Mr Ainsworth as well as great reward for their trust in Creevey Russell’s advice that their legal position was sound,” Mr Creevey said.

    Gilligan’s had entered an agreement with Mad Dogs in 2005 to provide catering and food for the resort but Mad Dogs became insolvent and was unable to uphold the agreement.

    The Supreme Court originally found in favour of Mad Dogs and later awarded damages after a civil trial, ruling the company had only been temporarily insolvent.

    But the Court of Appeal overturned the original judgment after finding Mad Dogs was fully insolvent and not entitled to make any claims for damages because it was unable and unwilling to uphold the agreement with Gilligan’s.

    Mr Creevey said the appeal involved detailed legal consideration of the effect of insolvency on a company carrying on a business.

    “We raised to the Court of Appeal significant public policy issues and submitted that to award damages would be endorsing companies acting illegally or in breach of the Corporations Act,” he said.

    “The appeal also considered the reasoning of insolvency and now gives guidance to companies concerned about that issue. Of interest to the Court of Appeal was the default of paying the Australian Taxation Office as a true indicator of insolvency.

    “In this matter the court of appeal found the future of solvency was uncertain and the result being that the company was not able to perform the agreement.”

    Mr Ainsworth said: “I am delighted with this outcome and the legal U-turn vindicates the stand taken by Creevey Russell Lawyers after a long and hard fought battle.”


    Further inquiries

    Dan Creevey: : (07) 4617 8777

    Litigation Law

    Litigation Lawyers Toowoomba

    Litigation Lawyers Brisbane