David Brian Forster v Legal Services Board

DAVID BRIAN FORSTER
v
LEGAL SERVICES BOARD & ORS
[2014] HCASL 4
M72/2013
M73/2013

The applicant makes two applications for special leave to appeal to this Court.
The first alleges that the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Weinberg and Harper JJA and Kyrou AJA) erred in refusing the applicant leave to appeal against orders of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Emerton J) extending the receivership of the law practice of which he was principal.
The second alleges that the Court of Appeal erred in upholding a freezing order made by Emerton J with respect to the disposition of the proceeds of sale of the premises where the applicant's practice was conducted.
As the applicant does not have legal representation, the applications fall to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.
On 11 February 2014 he applied to have the Court postpone the pronouncement of orders. He advances no arguable ground for taking that course.
Appeals to this Court against the orders of the Court of Appeal would enjoy no prospect of success.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the applications.

K.M. Hayne
12 February 2014 S.M. Crennan

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of David Brian Forster v Legal Services Board, the applicant, David Brian Forster, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court against decisions made by the Supreme Court of Victoria and the Court of Appeal. The primary dispute involved orders extending the receivership of Forster's law practice and a freezing order on the proceeds of sale of his practice premises. The High Court was required to determine whether the Court of Appeal had erred in its decisions, particularly in refusing Forster leave to appeal and upholding the freezing order.

The legal issues central to this case included the correctness of the Court of Appeal's refusal to grant Forster leave to appeal against the Supreme Court's extension of the receivership and the validity of the freezing order on the proceeds of sale of the practice premises. The applicant argued that these decisions were erroneous and adversely affected his professional and financial interests.

The High Court found that Forster's applications for special leave to appeal did not present any arguable grounds for success. The Court was of the view that the decisions of the lower courts were sound and that there was no reasonable prospect that an appeal would succeed. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the applications for special leave to appeal. The Court directed the Registrar to prepare, sign, and seal the appropriate orders to that effect.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established