Our latest insights

With the recent rise in awareness of financial abuse of elderly individuals and the misconduct of executors of deceased estates, it is imperative to validate any suspected wrongdoing in order to pursue legal proceedings.

We’re excited to announce the return of our Forensics Forum, launching in February 2026 with a dynamic line-up of local and international experts.

Employee fraud can be perpetrated through the misappropriation of assets and/or financial statement misstatement.

Accounts payable and payroll fraud conducted by employees is an issue that can have a negative impact on businesses. Detecting and investigating these types of fraud requires a systematic approach to identify irregularities, gather evidence, and take appropriate action against the perpetrators.

To minimise the impact of fraud in Australia and globally, we are promoting anti-fraud awareness and education with a series of articles during International Fraud Awareness Week. This article is the first in our series and takes a closer look at the most commonly experienced types of fraud, the warning signs, and fraud detection.

When there is commingling of assets, as often seen in family law or commercial disputes, it can become difficult to identify asset ownership and asset value. In these instances, asset tracing is used to determine the source of the asset and how the asset has been used prior, and in the course of the dispute.

In the fast-moving ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) movement, the last few years have seen a proliferation of sustainability reporting frameworks all intended to help organisations make meaningful disclosures in relation to sustainability and other non-financial information.

Schools and education facilities are not immune to fraud and misconduct. It can be in the form of theft, misappropriation of funds, or the granting of contracts to known associates of key people.

Expert evidence – in both written form in the witness box – is a critical element of any legal proceedings. However, it is an Expert’s conduct in the witness box under cross-examination that is often the most commented upon by the Court through the judgments published.

Across the country, we are seeing a growing trend for shareholder oppression proceedings due to mechanism being used to expediate a deal between disputing shareholders. But how do you value a minority interest held by a shareholder when they have instigated such proceedings? We look at a recent judgment which provides further clarification for valuers in these growing scenarios.

In most cases, some level of assumptions have to be made when developing an expert witness or forensic accounting report. But there are some rules around what assumptions the Courts will accept as part of your findings. From instructed assumptions and assumptions made by the expert and testing their reliability, we explore assumptions in the context of your Expert Witness reports.

The use of third party information is a reality of building an expert witness report. Compiling our areas of expertise with that of others can elevate findings and create a well-rounded, comprehensive report. But not all sources of information are created equal – and the Courts have strict requirements for what third party information is acceptable and what isn’t. In this article we look at the growing trend for an expert’s reliance on third party sources and the perception by the Court.