Skip to main content
Connolly Suthers

Celebrating over 128 Years as Queensland Lawyers
1895 – 2023

Request Consultation

Leading Lawyers Townsville

Leading Lawyers Townsville

Sometimes, all you need is a fresh perspective. Connolly Suthers are North Queensland’s most experienced and qualified law firm. Established in 1895 with a foundation of leading Townsville lawyers, Connolly Suthers has since become one of North Queensland’s largest, most diverse, and dynamic firms.

Employing a range of expert Queensland lawyers who offer specialist legal advice, Connolly Suthers comprises a team of individual talents working under collective energy. Originating from Townsville Connolly Suthers deliver Queensland’s highest standards of legal help, advice, and services.

We work under the belief that strong reputations don't go unnoticed, and this is why our firm has continued to successfully service the legal needs of North Queenslanders for over 128 years. Work with a law firm that understands you and prioritises your needs – work with Connolly Suthers.

Read More

What Our Clients Are Saying

Read All
  • JJ - June 2023

    I have dealt with Connolly Suthers now on multiple occasions and its always with out a doubt absolutely amazing! The professionalism is outstanding, they deliver a 10/10 service every time. My resent home purchase was such a smooth transition all thanks to Mitchell. Any legal services needed I wouldn’t look past Connolly Suthers

  • NL - May 2023

    Fantastic from the first phone call. Buying a home all the way from NSW was made very easy with simple and quick phone calls.

  • PO - May 2023

    Fantastic service from lovely staff who are courteous and professional at all times. They help you every step of the way when you need their service and assistance and explain it with extensive knowledge and skills. They provide updates when you ask but will not send unnecessary things that can cost additional fees without your consent. They are reliable and their knowledge and help second to none. I highly recommend and have not found any member of staff undeserving of the recognition being polite and friendly throughout.

  • TP - May 2023

    The team at Connolly Suthers Townsville were amazing. A very special thanks to the Personal Injury Team, who were so very kind, compassionate and professional throughout the process. I can highly recommend Connolly Suthers Lawyers to look after you and your family in your time of need, and I will be forever grateful for Kathryn and her team’s tireless efforts.

  • TK - March 2023

    We worked with Mitchell Clark at Connolly Suthers Lawyers in Townsville for some conveyancing and he made buying our first home a breeze! We came to him under a slight time pressure and unsure of what needed to be done, and Mitchell very quickly got us up to speed on the process. Everything was explained clearly, all our questions were answered, and Mitchell provided us with timely, friendly and straightforward updates as we signed our contract and moved towards settlement. Thank you to Mitchell and to Connolly Suthers, we would recommend to anyone!

Our Legal Blogs

Read All
Article
What Is An Independent Children’s Lawyer & Do The Amendments To The Family Law Act 1975 Affect Them?
What Is An Independent Children’s Lawyer & Do The Amendments To The Family Law Act 1975 Affect Them?

What is an independent children’s lawyer? An Independent Children’s Lawyer (an “ICL” for short) is a lawyer appointed by the Court pursuant to section 68L of the Family Law Act 1975 to represent a child’s best interests and makes submissions to the Court regarding the best interests of the child. An ICL can be appointed in parenting proceedings where one or more of the following circumstances exist:- There are allegations of abuse or neglect of a child; There is a high level of conflict and dispute between the parents; There are allegations made as to the views of a child, and the child is of a mature age to express their views; There are allegations of family violence; Serious mental health issues exist in one or both parents or the child; There are difficult and complex issues involved in the matter. The main role of an ICL is to:- Arrange for all necessary evidence to be obtained and put before the Court; Facilitate the participation of the child in the proceedings in a manner which reflects the age and maturity of the child and the nature of the case; Ensure that any views expressed by the child are fully put before the Court; and Act as an honest broker between the child and the parents and facilitate settlement negotiations where appropriate. An ICL is obliged to consider the views of the child, however, ultimately, they are required to provide their own independent view about what arrangements or decision are in the child’s best interests. How does the ICL consider what is in the child’s best interest? The ICL can obtain various information to assist them in considering what is in the best interests of a child.  This can include:- Speaking with any counsellor for the child; Examining documents from the child’s school, child welfare authorities or police; Examining medical, psychiatric and psychological records of the parents and the child; and Questioning witnesses (parents and/or experts) at a final hearing. Who bears the cost of an ICL? An ICL is generally funded under a Legal Aid Scheme (either Commonwealth or State).  It is not a free service.  There are some circumstances where Legal Aid may ask the parties to contribute the costs of an ICL.  This is normally in circumstances where a party’s financial position permits them to do so or by Order of the Court. What effect does the Family Law Amendment Act 2023 have in relation to an ICL? The amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 relating to ICLs are as follows:- The ICL is required to meet with the child and provide the child with an opportunity to express views, unless an exception applies (section 68LA(5A) – (5D)); and The removal of the requirement that the appointment of an ICL in Hague Convention Cases can only be made in “exceptional circumstances) (repeal of section 68L(3) and addition to 68L(1)); The removal of the higher threshold requirement in the Family Law Act 1975 which provides the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 must not allow an objection by a child to return under the Hague Convention to be taken into account unless the objection imports a strength of feeling beyond the mere expression of a preference or of ordinary wishes (repeal of section 111B(1B)). Duties of an ICL The amendment to section 68LA of the Family Law Act 1975 provides that the ICL has a duty to meet with the child and provide the child with an opportunity to express a view (section 68LA(5A)), unless an exception applies (section 68LA(5B)), however, an ICL cannot require the child to express their view in relation to any matter (section 60CE). Regarding the duty to meet with the child, the legislation specifically provides that an ICL has discretion as to when, how often and how meetings with the child will take place and when, how often and how the child is provided with an opportunity to express their view (section 68LA(5AA)). Section 68LA(5B) of the Family Law Act 1975 provides that the ICL is not required to meet with the child if:- The child is under the age of 5; or The child does not want to meet with the ICL, or express their views; or There are exceptional circumstances that justify not performing that duty (ie performing the duty would expose the child to a risk of physical or psychological harm that cannot be safely managed or have a significant adverse effect on the wellbeing of the child – section 68LA(5C)). If the ICL does not meet with the child due to any of the exceptions provided in section 68LA(5B), prior to the Court making final orders, the Court must determine whether it is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the ICL not meeting with the child.  If the Court determines that exceptional circumstances did not exist to justify the ICL not meeting with the child, the Court must make an order requiring the ICL to meet with the child or provide the child with an opportunity to express their views (section 58LA(5D)). Expansion of use of ICLs in Hague Convention Cases The Hague Convention of the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is the main international agreement that covers international parental child abduction.  It provides a process through which a parent can seek to have their child returned to their home country.  It also deals with issues of international child access (when a parent lives in a different country to the home country of their child).  The Convention is a multilateral treaty in force between Australian and 90 other Countries. The repeal of section 68L(3) of the Family Law Act 1975 removes the requirement that an appointment of an ICL in Hague Convention proceedings can only be made in “exceptional circumstances”.  Section 68L(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 has been amended to provide that the section 68L (court’s consideration of appointing an ICL) applies to proceedings where a child’s best interest are paramount or a relevant consideration and further specifies that it also applies to Hague Convention proceedings. This means that an ICL in Hague Convention proceedings will now be appointed by the Court under the same circumstances as other parenting matters. Need advice? Our Family Law Team can provide you with comprehensive and specific advice about parenting matters. Contact our Family Law Department, if you would like to arrange an initial consultation.

Article
Amendments To The Family Law Act 1975
Amendments To The Family Law Act 1975

There were a number of amendments made to the Family Law Act 1975 which came into effect on 6 May 2024. For parenting, two major areas of change relate to parental responsibility and time. What has changed for parental responsibility? The amendments have removed Section 61DA, which provided that there was a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility for major long-term issues, with the exception of the presumption not applying if there was family violence. Where the presumption applied, parents were required to come to joint decisions about major long-term issues for their child/ren under Section 65DAC (which has also been removed). Section 61C remains, which provides that, subject to a Court Order saying otherwise, each parent has parental responsibility for their child/ren. The section has been amended to remove reference to the previous section 61DA. Section 61D has been amended to include sub-paragraph (3), which provides that the Court can make an Order to allocate parental responsibility for major long-term issues as joint or sole decision-making. There has been an inclusion of Section 61DAA, which provides that if there is an Order for joint decision-making on major long-term issues, the parents are required to:- Consult with each other about decisions to be made; and Make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision. In the absence of an Order dealing with parental responsibility for major long-term issues, then the new section 61CA applies, which provides that where it is safe to do so, parents are encouraged to:- Consult with each other about major long-term issues; and In consulting with each other, have regard to the best interests of their child/ren as the paramount consideration. The take away from the amendments is that, where safe to do so, there is still an obligation on parents to consult with each other about major long-term issues for their child/ren and make decisions in the best interests of their child/ren. For decisions that are not major long-term issues, Section 61DAB has been added, which provides that there is no need for parents to consult with each other about matters that are not major long-term issues. What do the changes mean for current Orders which provide for equal shared parental responsibility? The amendments do not affect current Orders which provide that parents have equal shared responsibility for major long-term issues, meaning that parents subject to such an Order are still required to make joint decisions about major long-term issues. What about time arrangements? Section 65DAA has been removed, which provided that where there was equal shared parental responsibility for major long-term issues, the Court was required to first consider an equal time care arrangement and whether it was in the best interests of the child/ren and reasonably practicable; if not in the child/ren’s best interests or reasonably practicable, the Court was required to consider “significant and substantial” care arrangements. There has not been any inclusion of a specific section to replace the previous section 65DAA or set out a framework for consideration of care arrangements in terms of time. The effect is that the Court will be required to consider each case based on the facts and apply the “best interests” principles to determine what care arrangements to order. Section 60CC continues to detail consideration for what is in the best interests of children. This section has been amended so that the list of considerations has been condensed into a shorter list. These considerations are:- Promotion of safety for the child/ren and each person who has care of the child/ren; Views expressed by the child/ren; Developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child/ren; Capacity of carers to provide for the needs of the child/ren; Benefit of the child/ren having a relationship with the child/ren’s parents and other persons significant to the child/ren; Any other relevant matter; The child/ren’s right to enjoy their Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture. What do the changes mean for current Orders which provide for equal time arrangements? The amendments do not affect current Orders and the time arrangements pursuant to those Orders, meaning that time arrangements for child/ren are to continue in accordance with current Orders. Can Orders be changed? There has been inclusion of Section 65DAAA, which provides that where there are current Orders, a Court cannot look to make new Orders unless there has been a “significant change in circumstance” and it is in the best interests of the child/ren that the Court considers making new Orders. The inclusion of Section 65DAAA is to essentially include in the legislation the law that already applied under the decision of Rice & Asplund. Need advice? Our Family Law Team can provide you with comprehensive and specific advice about parenting matters. Contact our Family Law Department, if you would like to arrange an initial consultation.

Article
When can a Court make a Domestic Violence Order?
When can a Court make a Domestic Violence Order?

Case study – ZTP v BBY [2023] QDC 59 The purpose of our Domestic Violence legislation is to ensure that people who fear or experience domestic violence are protected and kept safe.[1] The Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act (DVFPA) achieves this goal by providing a victim of domestic violence with a Domestic Violence Order (DVO) provided by the Court. A DVO is a Court order that is generally made by a Magistrate, designed to protect the aggrieved, their children, or others who are named on the order. The making of a DVO is not a criminal offence, nor is it a criminal proceeding. Contravening or breaching a DVO made by the Court is a criminal offence and carries a maximum penalty of 120 penalty units or three (3) years imprisonment. However, the penalties are more severe if you have a prior conviction for a DV offence within the last five (5) years. For the Court to make a protection order, it must be satisfied that: A relevant relationship exists between the parties and; In the context of that relationship, domestic violence has occurred and; That it is necessary and desirable in all the circumstances for the Court to make an order. It is important to note that the Legislation provides a broad definition of what domestic violence is. Section 8 of the DVFPA defines domestic violence to include[2]: Behaviour, or a pattern of behaviour, by a person towards another person in a relevant relationship that is: (a) is physically or sexually abusive; or (b) is emotionally or psychologically abusive; or (c) is economically abusive; or (d) is threatening; or (e) is coercive; or (f) in any other way controls or dominates the second person and causes the second person to fear for the second person’s safety or wellbeing or that of someone else. (2) Behaviour, or a pattern of behaviour, mentioned in subsection (1) — (a) may occur over a period of time; and (b) may be more than 1 act, or a series of acts, that when considered cumulatively is abusive, threatening, coercive or causes fear in a way mentioned in that subsection; and (c) is to be considered in the context of the relationship between the first person and the second person as a whole. (3) Without limiting subsection (1) or (2) , domestic violence includes the following behaviour— (a) causing personal injury to a person or threatening to do so; (b) coercing a person to engage in sexual activity or attempting to do so; (c) damaging a person’s property or threatening to do so; (d) depriving a person of the person’s liberty or threatening to do so; (e) threatening a person with the death or injury of the person, a child of the person, or someone else; (f) threatening to commit suicide or self-harm so as to torment, intimidate or frighten the person to whom the behaviour is directed; (g) causing or threatening to cause the death of, or injury to, an animal, whether or not the animal belongs to the person to whom the behaviour is directed, so as to control, dominate or coerce the person; (h) unauthorised surveillance of a person; (i) unlawfully stalking, intimidating, harassing or abusing a person. Can the Court refuse to make a protection order despite there being evidence of domestic violence? The short answer is yes. For a Court to make a protection order, it must satisfy the three elements we discussed above. It is not merely enough to show that a relevant relationship exists and that an act of domestic violence has occurred; the Court must be satisfied that it is necessary and desirable in all the circumstances. A recent decision from the District Court of Queensland highlighted that even though domestic violence occurred, it was not necessary or desirable in all the circumstances to make a final order. The decision of ZTP v BBY [2023] QDC 59 is significant because, on an appeal to the District Court, the Judge found that the Magistrate did not take into account the elements of necessity and desirability, and, as such, found that the order should not be made. Facts of case On July 26, 2022, the Magistrate made an order for a final protection order in the Holland Park Magistrates Court. The order was for two years against the appellant (ZTP) naming his de facto partner (MNP) as the aggrieved. There were no children in the relationship, and the relationship between ZTP and MNP was ongoing for six (6) years. This was an application brought on by the Queensland Police Service on behalf of the aggrieved MNP. The Police made the application after investigating a complaint brought about by the couple’s neighbour. A temporary protection order was made, and this order turned into a final order following a hearing in the Holland Park Magistrates Court. The aggrieved MNP did not support the police application, nor did she support the making of a temporary protection order. The police continued to run the application on behalf of the aggrieved. Which is a common protocol for Queensland Police now. At the hearing, it was not disputed that the parties were in a relevant relationship; likewise, it was open on the evidence for the Magistrate to come to the view that the applicant, ZTP committed an act of domestic violence on November 2021. The primary issue was that the Magistrate had fallen into error in finding that it was necessary and desirable in all the circumstances that an order be made. “Necessary and Desirable” Section 37 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act sets out when a Court can make a protection order. The third and final element in focus that section 37 talks about is: Section 37 (1) (c) the protection order is necessary or desirable to protect the aggrieved from domestic violence. (2) In deciding whether a protection order is necessary or desirable to protect the aggrieved from domestic violence— (a) the court must consider— (i) the principles mentioned in section 4 ; and (ii) if an intervention order has previously been made against the respondent and the respondent has failed to comply with the order—the respondent’s failure to comply with the order; and (iii) the respondent’s criminal history and domestic violence history filed in or given to the court under section 36A ; and (b) if an intervention order has previously been made against the respondent and the respondent has complied with the order—the court may consider the respondent’s compliance with the order. For a Court to properly determine whether it is necessary or desirable to make a final order, it must assess the risk of future domestic violence between the parties, in the absence of an order. His Honour Judge Muir DCJ, in ZTP v BBY observed observations of His Honour Judge Morzone KC in the case of MDE v MLG [2015] as to how future risk is assessed. At paragraph 20 of the decision, His Honour noted: First, the court must assess the risk of future domestic violence between the parties in the absence of any order. This means there must be a factual finding or inference drawn about the nature of and prospect that domestic violence may occur in the future. This will depend on the particular circumstances of the case. Relevant considerations may include evidence of past domestic violence and conduct, genuine remorse, rehabilitation, medical treatment, psychological counselling, compliance with any voluntary temporary orders, and changes of circumstances. Unlike its predecessor provision under the now superseded legislation, the court does not need to be satisfied that future domestic violence is ‘likely’. However, there must be more than a mere possibility or speculation about the prospect of domestic violence. Second, the court must assess the need to protect the aggrieved from that domestic violence in the absence of any order. Relevant considerations may include the evidence for the party’s future, personal and familial relationships, their places of residence and work, the size of the community in which they reside, and the opportunities for direct and indirect contact and future communication, for example, in relation to children. Third, the court must then consider when imposing a protection order it is necessary or desirable to protect the aggrieved from domestic violence.[3] Decision The original decision by the Magistrate to impose a two year domestic violence order was made on the basis of accepting the evidence at trial. The Magistrate acknowledged that there had been domestic violence that had occurred. However, the Magistrate did not provide a detailed reason as to why the making of an order would be necessary and desirable. The appeals Judge acknowledged that in the incident on November 10, 2021, the Respondent had committed an act of domestic violence in that he caused emotional and psychological abuse to the aggrieved. However, His Honour did not believe that the Magistrate had properly articulated her reasons with regard to the evidence at trial. His Honour’s observations at paragraphs [48]-[49] identified what the Court must consider in imposing a protection order. “[48] The critical question in this appeal is whether the order is necessary or desirable. [49] The focus on this element, namely whether the protection order is necessary or desirable to protect MNP from domestic violence, requires me to consider the paramount need for the protection of MNP. The discretion is a wide one and it follows from a plain reading of this section that the court must assess the risk of future domestic violence between the parties in the absence of any order” In determining that the making of an order was not necessary or desirable, His Honour had regard to the following (para 52 to 56):- Having considered all of the evidence I am not satisfied that a protection order is necessary or desirable to protect MNP from acts of domestic violence being perpetuated by the appellant for a number of reasons. [53]Firstly, MNP’s evidence, which I accept, is that she is not in fear of the appellant and that she does not consider a protection order. Having considered all of the evidence, I am not satisfied that a protection order is necessary or desirable to protect MNP from acts of domestic violence being perpetuated by the appellant for a number of reasons necessary or desirable to protect her. [54]Secondly, whilst there has been a past act of domestic violence – this occurred some 15 months ago, and it was a relatively isolated incident that did not involve physical violence against MNP and the emotional and psychological abuse must be seen in the context of their relationship at that time – one of six (6) years standing and one where they both clearly verbalised loudly their differences. [55]Thirdly, there is evidence of genuine and immediate remorse and insight shown by the appellant into his conduct, reflected by the fact that he has taken immediate steps towards rehabilitation by engaging in counselling sessions with a psychologist to improve his communication with MNP, a person he remains in a relationship with. I am also satisfied that the appellant has found better ways to deal with the disorder with his jaw, which seemed to be at the root of a number of the arguments between MNP and him. [56] Fourthly, the uncontested evidence is that even though the parties continue to co-habitat, there have been no incidents at the house since November 10, 2021. The appeal Judge made the following orders:- The appeal be allowed The final protection order made on 26 July7 2022 is set aside The temporary protection order made on 17 Nov 2022 is set aside. The original application for a police protection order dated 10 November 2021 and filed in the Holland Park Magistrates Court in November 2021 is dismissed. How can we assist you? This decision provides great insight into what a Court must consider before making a final domestic violence protection order. Just because an application for a domestic violence order has been made, the final decision will need insight into more than one specific area. The need to closely scrutinise Police and private applications for domestic violence orders is incredibly important. If you have been charged with a domestic violence offence, or if you are approached by the Police for an application for a domestic violence order; it is crucial that you obtain independent legal advice before proceeding any further. Our Criminal Law team practice extensively in Domestic and Family Violence Law and can assist you in obtaining a Domestic Violence Order, responding to an application for a Domestic Violence Order or Police Protection Notice, and representing you in relation to any criminal offence that may be DV related. If you are experiencing domestic violence, being subject to coercive control, or have been accused of coercive and controlling behaviour, you can contact Connolly Suthers Lawyers to assist you. If you need any further information or assistance, please contact: DVCONNECT MENSLINE - 1800 600 636 DV CONNECT WOMENSLINE - 1800 811 811 Lifeline- 131 11 14   [1] Section 4, Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 – Principles for administering Act [2] Ibid, section 8 [3] ZTP v BBY [2023] QDC 59

The Connolly Suthers Difference

The Connolly Suthers Difference

At Connolly Suthers, we feel privileged to be entrusted with our client's legal affairs, helping them navigate what is often some of the most challenging times of their lives. Our diverse, talented team has considerable expertise in multiple aspects of law and channel this experience to make a substantial, positive difference in the lives of locals.

We believe that your lawyer should have a significant understanding of how Townsville operates and its underlying cultural systems to provide the most genuine, useful legal advice possible. That’s why we frequently employ experienced legal professionals locally from within North Queensland, possessing a proud history of employing law graduates from James Cook University. Not only does this allow us to give back to the local community, but it only boosts our ability to deliver the most relevant and beneficial legal advice possible.

Our genuine care for the wellbeing of our clients and attention to detail in every case is what sets us apart from other law firms in Queensland. From criminal law to personal injury law, family disputes, property settlements, child custody, and traffic offences, we'll be in your corner, every step of the legal process. If you’re looking for legal support in Townsville, we’re here to make a positive difference in as many lives as possible. Call Connolly Suthers on 07 4771 5664 to get help today.

Read More
Find out what Connolly Suthers can do for you

If you have an ongoing case with another firm and you are unhappy with how things are progressing, you might want to consider switching to the local lawyers at Connolly Suthers.

Find out what Connolly Suthers can do for you

Schedule A Consultation

No Win

No Fee

You can have the best legal representation you deserve without the worry of paying legal costs in the event you lose your case*

Providing a stress-free, 'to-your-door' conveyancing service any day, any time that suits you
TMC

Providing a stress-free, 'to-your-door' conveyancing service any day, any time that suits you

Learn More

Frequently Asked Questions

What legal services do Connolly Suthers offer?

We operate across a range of legal matters including compensation, family, wills & estates, property, conveyancing, business, dispute resolution and criminal law; helping a variety of clients across Queensland to navigate the legal system. 

It’s highly likely that you’ll need the services of a lawyer at least once in your lifetime.  When you turn to Connolly Suthers for legal assistance, you can be confident that you’ll receive quality legal advice with a personal touch, regardless of which service you require. Our criminal lawyers, family lawyers, and compensation solicitors are here to help with the most common types of legal problems faced in these areas of concern.

Whether you're facing criminal offences, are dealing with a family law matter, looking to file compensation claims,  have traffic offences, a domestic violence order, class actions, or just require an experienced team to assure a successful legal outcome, we can provide specialised advice for a wide range of concerns and legal issues.

Whatever type of legal assistance you need, we’re sure to be able to help.  At Connolly Suthers, we have considerable experience and knowledge in all aspects of compensation law, family law, wills and estates, property law, criminal law, conveyancing, business services and dispute resolution. 

We have Queensland Law Society Accredited Specialists in Property Law, Succession Law, Family law and Personal Injuries Litigation. Combining extensively trained and experienced legal practitioners with state-of-the-art communications and technology, Connolly Suthers delivers an unrivalled level of legal service in the Northern Queensland region. Get in touch with our team today - we're here to provide legal advice for a wide range of legal matters.

Do you offer free consultations?

Yes, at Connolly Suthers Lawyers Townsville, we offer free consultations in most areas.

Please note that while ‘family law’ and ‘employment law’ offer discounted fees for your initial appointment, they do not offer free consultation.

Do you offer No-Win, No-Fee?

Yes we offer no-win, no-fee services because we believe that nobody should be denied justice as a result of limited finances.  We offer no-win, no-fee services in a range of matters including:

  • Traffic accidents
  • Workplace accidents
  • Public liability accidents
  • Medical negligence claims
  • Life insurance claims
  • Superannuation claims
  • Certain commercial disputes

With Connolly Suthers Townsville Lawyers, you get the legal representation that you deserve without the worry of paying legal costs in the event that you lose your case.  Our compassionate, friendly team understand the value of excellent service when facing a legal problem and a difficult time. Work with the solicitors that understand you and prioritise your needs – work with Connolly Suthers.

How much does representation with Connolly Suthers cost?

All Connolly Suthers clients receive the absolute highest level of quality legal representation and advice available in the region.  Generally the cost of our legal services will vary based on the time required for our legal team to work on your case and the extent of the case as a whole, unless it is one of our fixed-fee services.

Regardless, we believe that nobody should be denied justice as a result of limited finances and that’s why we offer no-win, no-fee services in a range of matters including:

  • Traffic accidents
  • Workplace accidents
  • Public liability accidents
  • Medical negligence claims
  • Life insurance claims
  • Superannuation claims
  • Certain commercial disputes

With Connolly Suthers Townsville Lawyers, you get the legal representation that you deserve without the worry of paying legal costs in the event that you lose your case.  Work with the lawyers that understand you and prioritise your needs – Connolly Suthers.

How do you charge? Will I need to pay upfront? What are your prices like?

Most legal services are charged in accordance with a costs agreement which is provided to you at the commencement of the matter.  Usually this must be signed and returned before any work is completed.  This includes work done in most areas such as family law, personal injury, large commercial and leasing work, criminal law and estate administration. From your first phone call, your family lawyer, criminal lawyer, personal injury or estate solicitors can walk you through these fees work. 

There are fixed price services available for basic conveyancing, wills and enduring powers of attorney. No nasty surprises - just a team who are committed to the best outcome. Please contact our office for more information about these services. 

Do you offer payment plans?

Generally, no. However, you should feel free to discuss your financial situation with the solicitor involved with your case, at your initial appointment at Connolly Suthers. We understand that moving through the legal system can get expensive - from your first phone call, our compassionate team will openly discuss fees and work in your best interests, in a timely manner, to achieve a positive outcome. 

Do you certify documents? Do you have JPs available?

We usually only certify documents for clients of Connolly Suthers or in the course of matters in which we are involved. If you are looking to find a JP you can search for one here.

Do you hold relatives' documents in safe custody? What can you hold in safe custody?

For client's of Connolly Suthers we offer the service of storing in our safe custody original Wills, Enduring Powers of Attorney, Certificates of Title, etc.

How are you involved with the Townsville Community?

The partners and staff of Connolly Suthers have long-standing ties throughout the local community. Over a large number of years we have supported various clubs and sporting teams in Townsville and in the Burdekin. We are regular supporters of Ronald McDonald House  and the Vinnies foundation.

Find out more about our contributions to the local community here.

How do I contact Connolly Suthers?

You can call our Townsville QLD office on 07 4771 5664 during business hours.

Alternatively, submit an email enquiry to enquiries@cosu.com.au and the Connolly Suthers team will endeavour to respond to your enquiry within one business day.

Where are your other offices located?

Our Brisbane office is located at 240 Queen Street, Brisbane.

Our Ayr office is located at 180 Queen Street, Ayr.

We visit Cairns and Mount Isa as well as other regions throughout North Queensland by appointment.