Champion v Rohrt

In Champion v Rohrt, the liquidator of a company sought documents from the company’s solicitor, which were not provided. The dispute was brought before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), which was granted jurisdiction under the Legal Profession Act 2004 to adjudicate on civil disputes between clients and legal practitioners regarding the provision of legal services. The central issue was whether the liquidator, acting on behalf of the company, qualified as a person within the meaning of the Act when requesting the documents, and whether the solicitor had the right to withhold them under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

The court considered whether the liquidator’s request for documents was made in their capacity as an agent of the company, thereby falling within the scope of the Legal Profession Act. The Act defines a person as including an agent acting on behalf of a principal. The court examined the nature of the liquidator’s role and determined that, in this context, the liquidator did act as an agent of the company. Consequently, the dispute qualified as a civil dispute under the Act, and VCAT had jurisdiction to hear it. The solicitor’s entitlement to retain the documents, as per Wentworth v De Montfort, was also evaluated, but did not alter the jurisdictional findings.

The court concluded that VCAT had jurisdiction to hear the matter and that the liquidator, acting as an agent of the company, was entitled to request the documents. The substantive dispute was resolved by consent, but the issue of costs remained. VCAT made an indemnity costs order against the liquidator, which the court found to be an error in exercising its discretion under the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act. The appeal was allowed, and no order was made regarding costs in the Tribunal.