Lucas Shipway is an experienced advocate with particular expertise in the areas of building & construction and international arbitration. He is ranked as a leading barrister in Doyle’s Guide to the Australian Legal Profession 2018 - Construction. Lucas is also regularly briefed in commercial matters generally, especially insurance, product liability and professional negligence disputes.

Prior to the Bar, Lucas practised in litigation at Allens in Sydney, and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in London. While in London, he acted for the Bank of England in its successful defence of a claim for £850 million; at that time the most expensive case in English legal history.

Lucas is a precise advocate with particular skills in problem-solving and dealing with technical evidentiary issues. He enjoys working with experts and witnesses, and is always happy to “roll up his sleeves” and work closely with his instructing solicitors to ensure that complex tasks such as evidence preparation are completed thoroughly and efficiently.

He is known by solicitors for his accessibility, responsiveness and commitment to teamwork. His experience as a solicitor gives him a useful familiarity with the challenges and priorities for instructors, as well as the ability to identify quickly how he can best be of assistance.

Lucas accepts direct briefs from in-house counsel. He respects the knowledge and understanding of his clients and considers them to be pivotal contributors to the successful outcome of a dispute.

Lucas presents lectures regularly, including in international arbitration at the University of Western Sydney, and construction law at the College of Law. He is a regular contributor to the Building & Construction Law Journal.

Outside chambers, Lucas enjoys music and long-distance running. He has run marathons in Australia and overseas and trail-running events including the North Face 100 (100km), the Oxfam Trailwalker (100km) and the Tasmanian Overland Track (80km).

Focus Areas + Select Cases

PPK Willoughby v Eighty Eight Construction [2014] NSWSC 760. Successful defence of an application to set aside an adjudication under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) on the basis (inter alia) that the adjudicator had merely adopted the superintendent’s valuations.

CH2M Hill v State of NSW [2012] NSWSC 963. Case involving a wide range of issues arising from the failure of a water-processing plant, including liability for damage suffered in the course of construction, assignments of bare causes of action and proof of damages for off-site overheads.

Silver Star Construction Pty Limited v Denham Constructions Pty Limited [2011] NSWDC 254. Successful defence of application for stay of proceedings to enforce judgment arising from adjudication under Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW)

John Holland Pty Ltd v Schneider Electric Buildings Australia Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 159. Case concerning the prohibition against re-agitation of issues adjudicated under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld)

UNCITRAL arbitration (Australia) - Acted for a manufacturer of consumer goods based in the United States in defending a claim for AUD 17 million. The background facts were the subject of earlier decisions in Fulcher & Ors v Knott Investments Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 232 and Knott Investments Pty Ltd v Fulcher [2013] QCA 67

UNCITRAL arbitration (Singapore) - Acted for contractor responsible for civil works at major iron ore mine project in Western Australia. 

Pratap v Permanent Custodians Limited [2013] NSWSC 1918. In this case, Young AJ confirmed that a party that has signed, sealed and unconditionally delivered a deed is bound by it even if another party fails to do so.

Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd v LG Electronics Australia Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 664 (18 May 2011). Successful application for an injunction to restrain the broadcast throughout Australia of advertisements for 3D televisions.

Howards Storage World Pty Ltd v Haviv Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 5. Appeal dealing with the question of whether issues ought to be aggregated for purposes of awarding costs.