Fagenblat v Feingold Partners Pty Ltd - [2001] VSC 479

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No. 6934 of 2000

MARK FAGENBLAT	Plaintiff
v.
FEINGOLD PARTNERS PTY. LTD. (ACN 078 670 023)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	PAGONE, J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29 NOVEMBER AND 3 DECEMBER 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 DECEMBER 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	FAGENBLAT v. FEINGOLD PARTNERS PTY. LTD.
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 479

---

CATCHWORDS: Valuation of goodwill in legal practice – Subsequent events – Expert evidence – Factors relevant to valuation – Departure of partner – Partners' duties as fiduciaries.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr. M. Dreyfus Q.C. and Mr. P. Santamaria	Nathan Kuperholz
For the Defendant	Mr. L. Glick S.C.	Strongman & Crouch

HIS HONOUR:

This proceeding is in substance a partnership dispute between the four principal lawyers who effectively conducted a practice up to 30 June 2000 under the name of "Feingold Partners". The plaintiff, Mark Fagenblat (who sues in this capacity as trustee of the Mark Fagenblat Practice Family Trust), is now 55 years of age. In 1990 he joined the firm, then known as Feingold Gurgiel, which was the successor of the practice established by Simon Feingold in 1981. Mr. Fagenblat did not join the firm in 1990 as a partner but brought with him clients and contacts which he had established from his time as a practising lawyer since 1971 (with a gap between 1976 and 1980 when he was absent from Australia living in Israel). He acquired a 10% interest in the practice as from 1 January 1992 based upon the proportion of fees which he was able to generate: his "payment" for that interest was the contribution of his clients to the practice. Mr. Fagenblat subsequently acquired an additional 23.33% interest in the practice as at 1 July 1993. The mechanism used to fund that additional acquisition by Mr. Fagenblat was by an increase in partners' loan accounts of the firm in the names of Mr. Feingold and Mr. Gurgiel to such an amount that “the practice owed [them] substantially more capital than it owed to Mr. Fagenblat”. The goodwill of the practice at the time was struck at approximately $1,000,000, with the consequence that the acquisition by Mr. Fagenblat of the additional 23.33% of the practice as from 1 July 1993 cost him $233,000. Differential drawings were thereafter taken to equalise the capital entitlement of each of the partners. There have been a number of changes in the composition of the practice (including to its legal structure) between 1993 and its eventual dissolution. In June 2000, however, Mr. Fagenblat resigned from the practice and seeks by these proceedings his share of the value of the partnership as at 30 June 2000. By that time Mr. Fagenblat's interest was held through a family trust and was 25% of the practice.

The parties agree that the main issue in the proceeding is the correct value of…

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 Fagenblat v Feingold Partners Pty Ltd 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: [2001] VSC 479
Decision Date: 17 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Fagenblat v Feingold Partners Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff, a former partner in the defendant firm, who sought an assessment of the value of his share in the partnership. The dispute arose following the plaintiff's departure from the firm and was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff argued that the valuation of his partnership share should reflect the goodwill of the legal practice, while the defendant firm contended that subsequent events and changes in the business should be considered in determining the value.

The court was tasked with deciding whether the goodwill of the legal practice could be factored into the valuation of the plaintiff's share, and if so, to what extent. Additionally, the court had to assess the relevance of the expert evidence presented by both parties and consider the impact of the plaintiff's departure on the firm's valuation. The court was also required to evaluate the fiduciary duties of the partners and whether any breaches had occurred.

In delivering its judgment, the court held that the goodwill of the legal practice was a pertinent factor in determining the value of the plaintiff's share. However, it also noted that subsequent events, such as the plaintiff's departure, could influence the valuation. The court found that the expert evidence provided by both parties was valuable in understanding the complexities of the valuation process. Ultimately, the court concluded that the defendant firm had not breached any fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiff. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff a specific sum as the value of his share in the partnership, taking into account the factors outlined in the judgment.

Orders