Nola Pearce
Called to the Bar in 2018

Contact details

T  07 3231 0203
M 0406 380 928

​  Areas of Practice 

  • Professional negligence, regulation and discipline;

  • Commercial and contract disputes, and consumer law;

  • Civil appeals;

  • Insurance and financial services;

  • Public law and administrative;

  • Commissions and other inquiries.



Nola is a junior barrister with a wealth of experience as a solicitor at numerous mid-tier and top-tier commercial firms, prior to her call to the private Bar in 2018.


She specialises in professional negligence (including professional regulation discipline), and commercial and contract disputes.   Nola has appeared in Courts at all levels in most States and Territories, including appellate Courts (both led and unled) on behalf of corporations, individuals, insurers, government entities and professional regulators.  She brings to each matter her quality legal advice and persuasive advocacy skills, combined with a practical, strategic and sensitive approach to civil disputes.


Nola has been recognised in each of the 2021 and 2022 editions of the Best Lawyers in Australia TM for Professional Malpractice Litigation.  She was awarded the inaugural President’s Medal Outstanding Contribution Award 2016 by the Queensland Law Society (QLS); listed by Australasian Lawyer in its 2016 Hot List; and named a Woman Lawyer of the Year Award 2016 Finalist by Women Lawyer’s Association of Queensland.


Nola is also a past Chair of the QLS Ethics Committee, and a contributing editor to the QLS’s first edition commentary to the Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules.  She is a part-time lecturer in Professional Ethics at the College of Law in Brisbane, and is a regular and popular presenter to professional education events on all aspects of civil procedure, evidence and professional ethics.

Recent Cases​


Tower Cranes International Pty Ltd v Boland Cranes Pty Ltd [2021] QDC 183: Acting successfully (both at trial, and on appeal) for the purchaser of a defective second-hand tower crane component, in a claim involving issues of breach of contract and breach of consumer guarantees and implied terms. The sums ordered by the Court exceeded a formal offer made many months before trial. 




Faamate v Congregational Christian Church in Samoa-Australia (Ipswich Congregation) [2020] 4 QdR 221: Acting (with Paul McQuade QC) for the successful respondent to an appeal to the QCA from a decision of a trial justice of the Supreme Court.  The issues on appeal concerned the trial judge’s refusal to wind up an incorporated association on the just and equitable ground.  Nola also acted and appeared unled in the applications for stay of the judgment at first instance (successfully resisted) and security for costs of the appeal (successfully obtained).



Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Youi Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1701: Representing a major insurer in the Federal Court (with John McKenna QC) in proceedings brought by ASIC for alleged breach of section 13 Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth). The proceedings arose from events which emerged in the Hayne Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry.  For the insurer, Nola and McKenna QC were able to limit the outcome of the proceedings to a single declaration.  Together with McKenna QC, Nola previously had advised the insurer in respect of legal outcomes and strategic approach to the events and outcome of the Royal Commission.



Castle v Queensland Law Society [2021] QCAT 300: Acting for the regulator of the legal profession in resisting a review of its decision to refuse a practising certificate to a practitioner whom it was not satisfied was a “fit and proper person” as required by the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld).  As to the interface between a decision as to fitness and propriety on the one hand, and on the other a charge or finding of professional misconduct at the suit of the Legal Services Commissioner, Daubney J confirmed that the former does not depend upon any process or outcome to the effect of the latter.   The LPA does not require that the QLS’s consideration of fitness to continue holding a practising certificate be preceded by disciplinary charges brought by the LSC by way of a discipline application under the LPA.