Forster v Legal Services Board - [2013] VSCA 131

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2011 0099

DAVID BRIAN FORSTER
	Appellant
v
LEGAL SERVICES BOARD (ABN 82 518 945 610)	Respondent

S APCI 2012 0044

DAVID BRIAN FORSTER
DAVID BRIAN FORSTER	Appellant
v
LEGAL SERVICES BOARD (ABN 82 518 945 610) and	First Respondent
LEGAL SERVICES BOARD (ABN 82 518 945 610) and	NOEL BATROUNEY and ANDREW LYLE (in their capacity as Receivers of the law practice known as Hollows)	Second Respondents

---

JUDGES:	WEINBERG and HARPER JJA and KYROU AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	5 and 6 February 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 May 2013
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSCA 131
JUDGMENTS APPEALED FROM:	Two rulings 23 June 2011 (Emerton J) (S APCI 2011 0099); Ruling 1 March 2012 (Emerton J) (S APCI 2012 0044)

---

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – External intervention into a legal practice – Deficiencies in trust account – Appointment of receivers – Sale of office premises by appellant – Application to wind up and terminate the affairs of the law practice – Freezing orders – Whether trial judge erred in refusing to set aside freezing order – Whether trial judge erred in extending the receivership – Leave to appeal against orders for extension of receivership refused – Appeal against refusal to set aside freezing order dismissed.

Legal Profession Act 2004, ss 5.2.1 and 5.5.4(1)(b).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr D Forster in person	Whistleblowers Lawyers
For the Legal Services Board	Dr K P Hanscombe SC with Mr S R Senathirajah	Corrs Chambers Westgarth
For the Receivers	Mr P D Corbett SC with Mr S P Woolley	Hall & Wilcox

WEINBERG JA:

I agree with Harper JA.

HARPER JA:

Introduction

At 8.56pm on 10 February 1964, the flagship of the Australian Navy, the aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne, collided with another naval vessel, the destroyer HMAS Voyager. Struck amidships, the Voyager was sliced in half. Bow and stern both sank within seconds. Eighty-one members of her crew, together with a naval dockyard employee named Horace Porter, were killed. The ramifications were, of course, enormous. They included a multiplicity of disputes resulting in much difficult litigation. This appeal is an example.

It has its (distant) source in the events of that evening. But, although distant, it may be helpful to capture at this early point something of the trauma of the collision, if only because it puts the litigation which followed into a broad contextual framework; and it seems clear that it was – and continues to be – through the prism of this framework that David Forster (to whom I shall refer as ‘the appellant’) saw and sees his role as solicitor for a large number of those who sought to recover from the Commonwealth damages for injuries they suffered as a result of the disaster.

Apart from the 82 deaths, many others on the Voyager were physically injured, while crew from both vessels suffered, or claimed to have suffered, psychological damage. A moment’s reflection about the consequences of a warship being severed in two when on exercises…

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 Forster v Legal Services Board 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: [2013] VSCA 131
Decision Date: 30 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Forster v Legal Services Board involves the appellant, a legal practitioner, who appeals against decisions made by the Legal Services Board in relation to his law practice. The dispute centres around deficiencies in the trust account of the law practice, the appointment of receivers, and subsequent freezing orders and sale of office premises. The Legal Services Commissioner intervened in the appellant's law practice, following an investigation into deficiencies in the trust account, and appointed receivers to manage the practice. The receivers subsequently applied to wind up and terminate the affairs of the practice, leading to a series of orders for freezing the appellant's assets and the sale of the practice's office premises. The appellant sought to set aside the freezing order and challenged the extension of the receivership, arguing that the trial judge had erred in these decisions.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in refusing to set aside the freezing order and whether the trial judge had erred in extending the receivership. The appellant contended that the freezing order and the extension of the receivership were unjust and had caused significant harm to his professional reputation and personal finances. The court had to consider the statutory provisions of the Legal Profession Act 2004, specifically sections 5.2.1 and 5.5.4(1)(b), which govern the powers of the Legal Services Commissioner and the appointment of receivers. The court also needed to weigh the rights and interests of the appellant against the public interest in maintaining trust and integrity in the legal profession.

The court found that the trial judge had not erred in refusing to set aside the freezing order, as the evidence supported the conclusion that there was a real risk of dissipation of assets. The court also upheld the decision to extend the receivership, noting that the receivers had acted reasonably and in accordance with their statutory duties. The appellant's appeal against the refusal to set aside the freezing order was dismissed, and leave to appeal against the orders for extension of the receivership was also refused. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the legal profession and the necessity of the Legal Services Commissioner's powers to intervene in cases of professional misconduct or deficiencies in trust accounts.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the refusal to set aside the freezing order was dismissed and leave to appeal against the orders for extension of the receivership was refused. The court's decision underscores the significant statutory powers of the Legal Services Commissioner to intervene in legal practices to protect public interests and maintain the integrity of the legal profession. The ruling also highlights the importance of trust account management and the serious consequences that can arise from deficiencies in this area.

Orders