Brott v Maher (No 2) - [2004] VSCA 220

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 8883 of 2001

ISSAC BROTT & ORS
	Appellants
v.
PATRICIA MAHER & ORS (NO. 2)	Respondents

---

JUDGES:	EAMES, NETTLE and PHILLIPS, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	11 October 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	8 December 2004
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSCA 220

---

Equity – Solicitors – Breach of fiduciary duty – Solicitor engaged by clients in financial difficulties – Purchaser for clients’ properties procured by solicitor – Purchaser agrees to pay solicitor substantial sum “for himself” – Clients’ consent obtained to payment – Continuing negotiations over purchase – Whether payment to solicitor conditioned upon settlement - Whether consent “fully informed”.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellants	Mr G. Uren, Q.C. with Mr J. Isles	Minter Ellison
For the Respondents	Mr J. Langmead, S.C. with Mr T. Di Lallo	Coadys
For the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd Cross-Respondents	Mr J. Styring	Efron & Associates

EAMES, J.A.:

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the judgment of Phillips, J.A., and for the reasons his Honour gives I agree that the appeal should be dismissed.

NETTLE, J.A.:

I also agree.

PHILLIPS, J.A.:

This is an appeal brought by Issac Brott, a solicitor, after trial in the Trial Division earlier this year of a proceeding brought against Millenium Markets Pty Ltd and three individuals (including the appellant) by seven plaintiffs who are now the respondents to this appeal. There was a cross-appeal by the respondents but that was discontinued by notice a few days ago, on 5 October 2004. The abandonment of the cross-appeal precipitated an application by the cross-respondents for costs on a more onerous basis than merely party and party[1] in reliance upon an offer of compromise served early in July 2003, but the Court determined that application at the conclusion of argument on the appeal and the cross appeal is of no further relevance.
[1]As to which see RSC Chapter I Rule 64.14(4).

The first respondent, Patricia Maher, and her two sons, the second and third respondents (“the Mahers”) together with the other four respondents, being companies controlled by the Mahers, owned certain properties (“the security properties”). These included land on which the Mahers had conducted a trash and treasure market ("the market land") and an apartment in Bourke Street, Melbourne ("the Bourke Street apartment"), to which, it seems, Mrs Maher was particularly attached. By April 1998 the Mahers were indebted to their bank, then the Bank of Melbourne Limited, in the sum of $6.35 million and, by the end of January 1999, although there had been negotiation, the Mahers were under considerable pressure from the bank to make repayment. On 28 January 1999 the Mahers retained the appellant to act for them to negotiate a solution to their problem and to effect such agreements and undertake such transactions as would enable them to raise the necessary funds to settle with the bank. For this the Mahers agreed to pay Brott the lump sum…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Brott v Maher (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Brott v Maher (No 2) [2004] VSCA 220
Case: [2004] VSCA 220
Decision Date: 8 December 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brott v Maher (No 2) is a case that came before the court, involving a dispute between the parties over a breach of fiduciary duty by a solicitor. The clients, who were experiencing financial difficulties, engaged the solicitor to handle the purchase of their properties. The solicitor procured a purchaser for the properties, who agreed to pay the solicitor a substantial sum “for himself.” The clients consented to the payment, but there were ongoing negotiations about the purchase. The central issue in the case was whether the payment to the solicitor was conditional upon the settlement of the purchase and whether the clients' consent was fully informed.

The court was required to determine whether the solicitor had breached their fiduciary duties in obtaining the payment from the purchaser and whether the clients' consent to the payment was valid. The court examined the circumstances surrounding the payment and the clients' understanding of the terms and conditions. The court had to assess whether the clients had been fully informed about the nature of the payment and the implications of their consent.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the solicitor had indeed breached their fiduciary duties by accepting a payment from the purchaser without proper disclosure or consent from the clients. The court concluded that the clients' consent was not fully informed, as they were not adequately informed about the potential conflict of interest and the implications of the payment. The court held that the solicitor's actions amounted to a breach of fiduciary duty, and the clients were entitled to seek redress for the solicitor's misconduct.

The court ordered the solicitor to compensate the clients for the amount of the payment received from the purchaser, along with interest. The court also directed the solicitor to pay costs associated with the litigation. This ruling underscores the importance of transparency and full disclosure in the solicitor-client relationship and highlights the necessity for clients to be fully informed when giving consent to any financial dealings involving their properties.

Orders