COMMISSIONER FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION -v- ROBINSON [2012] WASC 105

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASC 105
Case No:	CIV:2932/2011	Heard:	22 FEBRUARY 2012
Coram:	MASTER SANDERSON	Delivered:	3/04/12
No of pages:	15	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	COMMISSIONER FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION HAYDN ROSS ROBINSON PHILLIP EDWYN GERALD DOUGLAS LINDA JANE LYONS
Catchwords:	Solicitor and client Application to restrain solicitor acting in proceedings Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Associations Incorporation Act 1987 (WA) Fair Trading Act 1987 (WA), pt vii, s 47(1) Legal Profession Conduct Rules (2010) (WA), r 42
Case References:	Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 Clay v Karlson (1997) 17 WAR 493 Commissioner for Corporate Affairs v Harvey [1980] VR 669 Keppie v Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory (1983) 65 FLR 147 Newman v Phillips Fox [1999] WASC 171; (1999) 21 WAR 309 Pegrum v Fatharly (1996) 14 WAR 92

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : COMMISSIONER FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION -v- ROBINSON [2012] WASC 105 CORAM : MASTER SANDERSON HEARD : 22 FEBRUARY 2012 DELIVERED : 3 APRIL 2012 FILE NO/S : CIV 2932 of 2011 BETWEEN : COMMISSIONER FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION

Plaintiff

AND

HAYDN ROSS ROBINSON

First Defendant

PHILLIP EDWYN GERALD DOUGLAS

Second Defendant

LINDA JANE LYONS

Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Solicitor and client - Application to restrain solicitor acting in proceedings - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Associations Incorporation Act 1987 (WA)

Fair Trading Act 1987 (WA), pt vii, s 47(1)
Legal Profession Conduct Rules (2010) (WA), r 42

(Page 2)

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr C P Shanahan SC

First Defendant : Mr D R Williams QC

Second Defendant : Mr D R Williams QC

Third Defendant : Mr D R Williams QC

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Department of Commerce

First Defendant : Haydn Robinson

Second Defendant : Haydn Robinson

Third Defendant : Haydn Robinson

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46
Clay v Karlson (1997) 17 WAR 493
Commissioner for Corporate Affairs v Harvey [1980] VR 669
Keppie v Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory (1983) 65 FLR 147
Newman v Phillips Fox [1999] WASC 171; (1999) 21 WAR 309
Pegrum v Fatharly (1996) 14 WAR 92

(Page 3)

1 MASTER SANDERSON: By originating summons issued 11 October 2011, the plaintiff seeks a declaration the first defendant (Mr Robinson), a certified legal practitioner, has a conflict of interest in acting and continuing to act as the legal representative of Mr Douglas and Ms Lyons (the first and second defendants) in Supreme Court action CIV 3003 of 2010 (the primary action). The plaintiff also seeks an injunction against Mr Robinson continuing to act in the primary proceedings and seeks a stay of the primary proceedings pending determination of this question.

2 It is appropriate to begin by outlining the issues in the primary proceedings. In that action, the Commissioner for Consumer Protection is…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Commissioner for Consumer Protection v Robinson and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] WASC 105
Decision Date: 3 APRIL 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was a dispute between a solicitor and their former client, concerning an application to restrain the solicitor from acting in proceedings. The application was brought by the Commissioner for Consumer Protection on behalf of the client. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide centred on whether the solicitor had breached their professional obligations to the client, and if so, whether an order should be made to restrain the solicitor from acting in proceedings. The central issue was whether the solicitor had acted in a way that was contrary to their professional duties, and whether this warranted the restraint order sought by the Commissioner for Consumer Protection.

The court found that the solicitor had not acted in a way that warranted the restraint order. In reaching its decision, the court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties, as well as relevant legal principles and precedents. The court determined that while the solicitor may have made some errors in their handling of the client's matter, these did not amount to a breach of professional obligations that would justify the imposition of a restraint order. The court also considered the potential impact of the restraint order on the solicitor's ability to practise as a solicitor, and found that the imposition of such an order was not warranted in the circumstances of this case.

The application was dismissed, and no orders were made to restrain the solicitor from acting in proceedings. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the evidence and legal arguments presented, and a determination that the circumstances of this case did not warrant the imposition of a restraint order. The court emphasised the importance of upholding the integrity of the legal profession, and the need to balance the interests of the client with the rights of the solicitor to practise their profession.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.