Shonelle is a specialist commercial litigator with more than 15 years’ experience. She commenced her career as an associate in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, initially practised in criminal law for Legal Aid, and then worked in a boutique Perth litigation firm for a number of years. After a short period with a leading Canadian insurance law firm, Shonelle commenced employment at MDS Legal (now Williams + Hughes).
Shonelle practises primarily in professional negligence, acting on instructions from Law Mutual (WA), the insurance arm of the Law Society of Western Australia.
As well as having a professional association with the Law Society through her role at Williams + Hughes, Shonelle is an active member of the Society and serves on its Courts Committee.
Shonelle also has a keen interest in corporate governance and was a director of Hockey WA from early 2017 to early 2021. In May 2020, Shonelle was also appointed as a member of the Governance Panel of FIH, the International Hockey Federation.
Shonelle’s litigation experience includes:
Building and construction: acting in relation to a claim for loss and damage caused by a law firm’s alleged negligence in advising and assisting the claimant in the Building Disputes Tribunal.
Commercial – banking: providing advice in relation to the proportionate liability of an Australian bank, and a potential complaint to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, in relation to the conduct of that bank in accepting funds from overseas to an account that was not in the name of the intended recipient.
Commercial: acting for a law firm that allegedly gave negligent advice to change the shareholding and management of a company, which resulted in oppression proceedings being brought by the excluded shareholder/manager.
Commercial litigation – general: acting for a solicitor and the solicitor’s firm in the Supreme Court in relation to alleged fraudulent representations, misleading and deceptive conduct, negligence, undue influence and breach of fiduciary duty claims respecting the sale of a client’s business and steps taken in advance of the client’s proposed bankruptcy.
Commercial litigation – crime: acting for a solicitor in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal in relation to the solicitor’s alleged negligent conduct of the defence of criminal proceedings.
Cyber: acting for a number of law firms whose clients transferred funds for the purchase of properties to fraudsters rather than to law firms’ trust accounts.
Defamation: acting for a law firm in a claim that it negligently advised clients that it would be proper for the public company of which they were directors to pay or indemnify them for the costs they incurred in defamation proceedings against one of the shareholders of the company.
Family law: acting for a number of law firms responding to allegations that those firms negligently drafted binding financial agreements.
Leases: acting for a law firm that allegedly failed to register the claimant’s lease at Landgate, resulting in the claimant losing the benefit of the option to renew the lease upon a new landlord becoming the registered proprietor.
Mortgage/loan/guarantees: acting on a claim in which it was alleged that a law firm erroneously described the claimants as licensees of a farming property, with the result that the claimants could not enforce guarantees against the guarantors of a lease between the claimants as lessors and the guarantors as lessees.
Personal injury: acting for a number of law firms that allegedly missed limitation periods in slip and trip claims resulting in personal injury.
Property and conveyancing: acting for a law firm that allegedly terminated a contract for the sale and purchase of a pastoral lease on an incorrect basis, resulting in the client seller allegedly being unable to institute proceedings for specific performance against the purported buyer.
Wills and estates: acting for a law firm in relation to a claim in which it was alleged that the law firm failed to attend on the deceased promptly before her death to have a new will signed, resulting in the disappointed beneficiary allegedly not being entitled to assets of the estate that would have been left to her under the proposed new will.
