Amil Dlakic by his tutor Liliane Dlakic v Michael John Vaughan (No 3)

In the case of Amil Dlakic by his tutor Liliane Dlakic v Michael John Vaughan (No 3), the dispute involved the valuation of a legal practice under an agreement for a buyback, with the plaintiff seeking to either set aside or affirm the buyback agreement. The matter was before the court to determine the legal issues arising from the valuation and compensation due to the plaintiff under various scenarios. The court was required to decide on the effect of an earlier judgment that granted the plaintiff the right to elect to set aside or affirm the agreement, and whether the referee's report, which was prepared to assess the value of the practice under different scenarios, should be relied upon in determining the amount of compensation owed to the plaintiff.

The court considered whether the referee's report, which was prepared to provide an accounting report for various scenarios, was comprehensive enough to include all aspects of the plaintiff's claim. The court found that the referee was not instructed to assess certain components of the plaintiff's claim, and therefore, the report was not sufficient to determine the full extent of the compensation owed. The court subsequently made findings of the amount of compensation to which the plaintiff was entitled under each scenario, taking into account the various factors that the referee was not instructed to consider.

Following the court's findings, it was necessary to determine the costs associated with the interlocutory proceedings. The court made orders between the parties in respect of the costs incurred during the interlocutory phase of the litigation. The orders reflected the court's assessment of the parties' respective responsibilities for the costs, and were made in accordance with the principles of cost allocation in Australian litigation. The court's decision provided clarity on the valuation of the legal practice and the compensation due to the plaintiff, while also addressing the costs implications of the interlocutory proceedings.