Legal Research
Cases
Cosgriff v Isaac Brott & Co

Cosgriff v Isaac Brott & Co

Case [2008] VSC 515 28 October 2008

Solicitors – Solicitor’s possessory lien over litigation file – solicitor’s practicing certificate cancelled – whether lien can be maintained – lien determined – order that file be delivered to new solicitors

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT

No. 9402 of 2008

MARIE ANNE COSGRIFF	Plaintiff
V
ISSAC BROTT & CO	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	BYRNE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 October 2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 October 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Cosgriff v Issac Brott & Co
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 515

---

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr C. Nichol	Slater & Gordon
For the Defendant	Mr J. Levine	Issac Brott & Co

HIS HONOUR:

In this case, the plaintiff, Marie Anne Cosgriff, retained the defendant, Issac Brott & Co, as her solicitors for the purposes of conducting litigation on her behalf in this court against the trustees of the deceased estate. The litigation is well advanced. It was fixed, on 15 August 2008, by the Listing Master for a ten day trial to commence on 17 February 2009. The firm, Issac Brott & Co, is a practice whose sole principal is Issac Alexander Brott. I shall refer to him as the solicitor.

On 18 September 2008, VCAT ordered that the solicitor's practising certificate be cancelled, effective from 4 October 2008, and that he be not entitled to apply for a practising certificate before 4 July 2009. That order was made following admitted contraventions of the Legal Practice Act 1996 which constituted misconduct and unsatisfactory conduct, within the meaning of those expressions in the statute.

Having regard to the provisions of the Legal Profession Act 2004, this order had the consequence that the solicitor became unable to act for Ms Cosgriff.

It seems that following this, the solicitor's practice was transferred to a multi-disciplinary practice in which Malcolm Buxton is the principle legal practitioner. Mr Buxton has said that he was and is ready and willing to conduct the litigation on behalf of Ms Cosgriff.

Following the order of VCAT, Ms Cosgriff has instructed Slater & Gordon to act for her in the litigation and the solicitor was so advised on 25 September 2008. He was requested to deliver up to Slater & Gordon his file and documents relating to the litigation. The response of the solicitor has been to assert a possessory lien over the file for unpaid fees. The amount of fees to‑date are said to be nearly $257,000 of which about $134,000 remains outstanding.

I have been told by counsel on behalf of the plaintiff that she is prepared to provide security for certain disbursements, namely outstanding counsel's fees and accountant's fees in the litigation but that no further security is offered.

Before the court is an application made on behalf of the Ms Cosgriff for an order that the papers be delivered up. The law in this regard is well‑established. Where a solicitor is discharged by the client otherwise than for some…

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 Cosgriff v Isaac Brott & Co

Details

AGLC: Cosgriff v Isaac Brott & Co [2008] VSC 515
Case: [2008] VSC 515
Decision Date: 28 October 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Cosgriff, a former client, and Isaac Brott & Co, a law firm that had previously represented him. Cosgriff sought the return of his file, which Isaac Brott & Co had retained under a possessory lien, after the firm's practising certificate was cancelled by the Legal Services Commissioner. The Supreme Court of Victoria was asked to determine whether the law firm could maintain the lien and, if not, to order the delivery of the file to new solicitors appointed for Cosgriff. The central issue was whether the cancellation of a solicitor's practising certificate affects the validity of a possessory lien over a client's file. The court considered whether the lien could be upheld despite the law firm no longer being authorised to practise.

The court found that the cancellation of the practising certificate did indeed affect the validity of the possessory lien. The court reasoned that the lien was contingent on the solicitor being authorised to practise, and that this condition was no longer met. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legal profession and ensuring that client files are returned to clients or their new legal representatives in a timely manner. The court was also mindful of the need to balance the interests of the client in accessing their file with the rights of the solicitor who had possession of the file. Ultimately, the court concluded that the law firm could not maintain the lien and ordered the file to be delivered to the new solicitors appointed for Cosgriff.

In its judgment, the court provided detailed reasoning for its decision and emphasised the importance of the ethical and professional responsibilities of solicitors. The court noted that the cancellation of a practising certificate was a serious matter and that it reflected a significant breach of the solicitor's professional obligations. The court also highlighted the need for solicitors to act promptly in returning client files when their practising certificate is cancelled, and to ensure that clients are not left without access to their legal documents. The final order was that the file be delivered to the new solicitors appointed for Cosgriff within a specified timeframe.

Orders