Legal Research
Cases
Burbidge v Wolf

Burbidge v Wolf

Case [2008] NSWSC 60 11 February 2008

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Burbidge v Wolf [2008] NSWSC 60
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 23 November 2007, 3 December 2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
11 February 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Nicholas J

DECISION: Par 73

CATCHWORDS: EQUITY – outstanding professional fees – whether proceedings for recovery of costs under Legal Profession Act 1987 or for breach of trust or restitution – whether trust established – whether compliance with requirements for disclosure – compliance mandatory – whether statutory immunity established

LEGISLATION CITED: Bankruptcy Act (Cth) 1966
Legal Profession Act 1987
Legal Profession Regulation 2002

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Conder v Silkbard [1999] NSWCA 459
Coshott v Lenin [2007] NSWCA 153
Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 22
Koutsourais v Metledge & Associates [2004] NSWCA 313
Kelly v Hogan [2004] NSWSC 238
Rahnam Investments Pty Ltd v Esplin [2004] NSWSC 529
Wentworth v Rogers [2002] NSWSC 709
Wentworth v Rogers [2006] NSWCA 145; (2006) 66 NSWLR 474
Zizza v Seymour [1976] 2 NSWLR 135

PARTIES: Richard John Burbidge - plaintiff
Freya Wolf - defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1343/06

COUNSEL: F Corsaro SC/A C Casselden - plaintiff
M Christie/V Culkoff - defendant

SOLICITORS: Hicksons - plaintiff
Steven Klinger - defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

Nicholas J

11 February 2008

1343/06 Burbidge v Wolf

JUDGMENT

1 His Honour : These proceedings arise from a dispute between the plaintiff, one of Her Majesty’s Counsel, and the defendant, wherein she denies liability for the payment of his unpaid professional fees.

2 In November 2002 the defendant, by her then solicitors, Mr Malcolm Johns and Mr George Mallos, of the firm Malcolm Johns & Company (collectively referred to as Johns), retained the plaintiff and junior counsel on a contingency basis to appear for her as plaintiff at the trial of her medical negligence action in the District Court of New South Wales (no. 6782/01) against Dr Norman Olbourne and North Shore Private Hospital as defendants. The hearing took place between 7 and 16 April 2003 before Herron DCJ. On 8 May 2003 a verdict for the defendant was entered against Dr Olbourne in the sum of $292,536.73, and a verdict for North Shore Private Hospital was entered against the defendant. Dr Olbourne was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs.

3 The plaintiff was subsequently retained by Johns to appear for the defendant on Dr Olbourne’s appeal. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal on 11 March 2004, and was dismissed with costs.
4 In these proceedings the plaintiff seeks to recover an amount which represents the balance of the outstanding professional fees owing to him. By his amended statement of claim he claims the following relief:

“1.1 A Declaration that the Defendant holds $34,949.44 received by her from the insurer of Dr Norman Olbourne on trust for the Plaintiff.

1.2 Damages in the sum of $34,949.44 for breach of trust.

1.3 In…

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 Burbidge v Wolf

Details

AGLC: Burbidge v Wolf [2008] NSWSC 60
Case: [2008] NSWSC 60
Decision Date: 11 February 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia involved Burbidge, a law firm, and Wolf, a former client. Burbidge sought recovery of outstanding professional fees owed by Wolf. The dispute centred on whether the proceedings should be for recovery of costs under the Legal Profession Act 1987 or for breach of trust or restitution. The court needed to determine if a trust had been established, whether there was compliance with disclosure requirements, and whether statutory immunity applied.

The central legal issues before the court were the nature of the proceedings, whether they were for recovery of costs under the Legal Profession Act 1987 or for breach of trust or restitution, and whether a trust had been established. Furthermore, the court had to decide if there was compliance with the disclosure requirements, and whether statutory immunity was applicable. The court needed to establish the correct legal framework for the recovery of the outstanding fees and whether the statutory immunity provisions applied to the proceedings.

The court found that the proceedings were for recovery of costs under the Legal Profession Act 1987, rather than for breach of trust or restitution. It held that the trust requirement was not satisfied, and therefore the alternative claims for breach of trust or restitution did not arise. The court also found that there was no compliance with the disclosure requirements, and this non-compliance was mandatory. Finally, the court ruled that statutory immunity was not applicable in these circumstances.

The court ordered that the proceedings were for recovery of costs under the Legal Profession Act 1987, and that there was no compliance with the disclosure requirements. The court further determined that statutory immunity did not apply. Consequently, the matter was to be remitted to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia for further proceedings in accordance with the Legal Profession Act 1987.

Orders