Aaronisle Pty Ltd v Thorpe

Case [2005] WASC 87


AARONISLE PTY LTD -v- THORPE & ANOR [2005] WASC 87



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2005] WASC 87
Case No:CIV:1388/200518 & 22 APRIL 2005
Coram:COMMISSIONER MCKERRACHER QC20/05/05
18Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Application dismissed
B
PDF Version
Parties:AARONISLE PTY LTD
ANDREW CECIL THORPE
REGISTRAR OF TITLES

Catchwords:

Mandatory injunction
Removal of caveat
Summary accounting
Fiduciary duty of legal practitioner in securing past and future fees
Undertakings to remove caveats to accommodate settlements

Legislation:

Legal Practice Act 2003, s 225, s 231(3), (4)
Legal Practitioners Act 1893, s 62
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 45 r 2
Transfer of Land Act 1893

Case References:

Air Express Ltd v Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd (1981) 146 CLR 249
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
Bullock v Federated Furnishing Trades Society of Australasia (No 1) (1985) 5 FCR 464
Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia (1986) 161 CLR 148
Cayne v Global Natural Resources Plc [1984] 1 All ER 225
Evans Marshall & Co Ltd v Bertola SA [1973] 1 All ER 992; [1973] 1 WLR 349
Holborow v Macdonald Rudder (A Firm) [2001] WASCA 91
Pindan Pty Ltd v Sunny's Redevelopment & Ors [2001] WASC 104
Re Nelson and the Legal Practitioner's Act (1970) 106 ACTR 1; 105 FLR 137
Re Peggoty, unreported; SCt of Qld (Derrington J); Library No 256 of 1981; 5 April 1991
State of Queensland v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1985) 59 ALR 243
State Transport Authority v Apex Quarries Ltd [1988] VR 187
Westminster Brymbo Coal & Coke Co v Clapton (1867) 36 LJ Ch 476
Woodward v Page, unreported; Eq Div SCt of NSW (McLelland J); Library No 3329 of 1989; 20 July 1989

Kirschbaum v "Our Voices" Publishing Company & Ors [1972] 1 OR 737
Macedonian Society of Western Australia (Inc) (Receiver and Manager appointed) v St George Bank Ltd [2003] WASC 17
Re Gyhon; Allen v Taylor (1885) 29 Ch 834

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CHAMBERS
CITATION : AARONISLE PTY LTD -v- THORPE & ANOR [2005] WASC 87 CORAM : COMMISSIONER MCKERRACHER QC HEARD : 18 & 22 APRIL 2005 DELIVERED : 20 MAY 2005 FILE NO/S : CIV 1388 of 2005 BETWEEN : AARONISLE PTY LTD
    Plaintiff

    AND

    ANDREW CECIL THORPE
    First Defendant

    REGISTRAR OF TITLES
    Second Defendant



Catchwords:

Mandatory injunction - Removal of caveat - Summary accounting - Fiduciary duty of legal practitioner in securing past and future fees - Undertakings to remove caveats to accommodate settlements




Legislation:

Legal Practice Act 2003, s 225, s 231(3), (4)


Legal Practitioners Act 1893, s 62
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 45 r 2
Transfer of Land Act 1893

(Page 2)

Result:

Application dismissed




Category: B


Representation:


Counsel:


    Plaintiff : Mr J R Birman
    First Defendant : In person (18 April 2005)
    Mr J Gilmour QC (22 April 2005)
    Second Defendant : No…

Continue reading Aaronisle Pty Ltd v Thorpe

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Aaronisle Pty Ltd v Thorpe [2005] WASC 87
Case
[2005] WASC 87
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Aaronisle Pty Ltd applied for urgent injunctive relief against Andrew Cecil Thorpe, a solicitor, and the Registrar of Titles. The plaintiff claimed that Thorpe, in breach of his fiduciary duties, had failed to advise the plaintiff about a charge executed to secure payment of professional fees. The plaintiff also sought an order for Thorpe to account for all monies he had received and paid on the plaintiff's behalf, both for professional services and commercial activities. The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff's claim was serious enough to warrant interlocutory injunctive relief and whether damages would be an adequate remedy. The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a high probability of success on the claim that Thorpe had breached his fiduciary duties regarding the charge. Additionally, the court found that there was a real dispute regarding whether Thorpe had already accounted for the Maylands project and legal fees, making a summary accounting inappropriate. The court also concluded that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunctive relief sought by the plaintiff. The application for injunctive relief was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.