Qualifications
Dinesh Ratnam is a commercial law barrister with more than 22 years’ legal experience (admitted as a solicitor in 2004, called to the bar in 2015). His practice focuses on equity, contractual disputes, banking and finance law, consumer law, fraud, insolvency, company law and building and construction law. Dinesh was recognised in the 2017 Doyle's Guide as an Emerging Construction & Infrastructure Junior Counsel within NSW.
Dinesh represents clients in all jurisdictions and regularly appears in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and Federal Court of Australia. He also frequently appears in courts and tribunals in Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria. He has also appeared in the High Court of Solomon Islands.
Dinesh’s clients have included liquidators, receivers, banks, insurers, insurance brokers, corporate entities, company directors, shareholders, venture capitalists, corporate trustees, builders, geotechnical engineers, commercial and residential property owners, landlords and tenants. He has also acted for sporting identities and clubs (UFC World Feather Weight Champion Alexander Volkonovski, NRL player Zachary Lomax and the Parramatta Eels). He has represented his clients in actions involving winding up and bankruptcy applications, unfair preferences claims, uncommercial transactions, shareholder oppression suits, trust disputes, contractual enforcement, restraint of trade, injunctions and freezing order applications. He has also acted for companies and individuals in consumer disputes involving misleading and deceptive conduct claims.
Dinesh believes in taking a collaborative approach with instructing solicitors, so that litigation runs more efficiently and effectively. He believes that effective advocacy means more than simply appearing in court. It involves taking a strategic and methodical approach to the matter, even before pleadings are filed.
Outside of Court, Dinesh is a mediator and Advocacy Instructor for the New South Wales Bar Association.
Specialisations
Professional Recognition
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 – enforcement - whether plaintiff contracted to withdraw payment claim — whether parties objectively evinced an intention to withdraw a payment claim — where defendant did not serve a payment schedule — where plaintiff did not forfeit statutory rights but rather made a commercial accommodation for minor reduction of sum claimed in payment claim.
We accept briefs in all areas of commercial practice and in our barristers’ other areas of practice. For further information or advice on our barristers and their availability, fees and areas of practice please contact our Clerk of Chambers.
