Frigger v Murfett Legal Pty Ltd (No 2)

The matter before the court was an appeal against a decision made by the Magistrates Court of Victoria, involving the appellant, Frigger, and the respondent, Murfett Legal Pty Ltd. The central issue of the appeal was whether the respondent's conduct amounted to misleading and deceptive conduct and unconscionable conduct under the Australian Consumer Law, as well as a claim for interest. The appellant also sought a review of the costs awarded in the original proceeding.

The court considered whether the re-amended appeal notice filed by the appellant complied with the Legal Profession Act 2008. The court found that the re-amended notice did not comply with the requirements of section 260(1)(a), (c), (d) and (f)(i) and (ii) of the Act. The court also found that the appellant had failed to make adequate costs disclosures as required by section 267 of the Act. The court held that the appellant's conduct was misleading and deceptive and unconscionable, and that the respondent was entitled to interest on the amount awarded. The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.