Goldberg v Beckett - [2018] NSWSC 583

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Goldberg v Beckett [2018] NSWSC 583
Hearing dates: 6 April 2018
Date of orders: 04 May 2018
Decision date: 04 May 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
(1) Order Ms Beckett to pay Turner Freeman’s costs of and incidental to these proceedings.
(2) In accordance with s 98(4) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, I direct that the costs referred to in order (1) be paid as a specified gross sum in the amount of $300,000.
(3) The summons and cross-summons are otherwise dismissed.

Catchwords: COSTS – party/party costs – where solicitor commenced proceedings for an injunction to enforce a solicitor’s lien over the fruits of litigation – where solicitor’s client sought to re-direct verdict monies into her own account contrary to the terms of a costs agreement and an authority to receive – where unnecessarily protracted litigation – where proceedings inappropriately used as a vehicle for defensive cross-claims that were doomed to fail and which were ultimately abandoned – whether specified gross sum costs order appropriate
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 98(4)
Legal Profession Act 2014 (NSW), ss 309, 316, 317, 368
Cases Cited: Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (No 2) (1995) 57 FCR 119
Beckett v State of New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 1017
Goldberg v Beckett [2015] NSWSC 1966
Goldberg v Beckett [2016] NSWSC 1646
Goldberg v Beckett [2017] NSWSC 1075
Hamod v State of New South Wales (No 13) [2009] NSWSC 756
Hamod v State of New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375
Russo & Ors v Russo & Ors (No 4) [2016] NSWSC 1133
Category: Costs
Parties: Terence Louis Goldberg, Armando Gardiman and Thady Blundell t/as Turner Freeman (Plaintiffs)
Roseanne Beckett (First Defendant/Cross-Claimant)
The State of New South Wales (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
J McDonald (Plaintiffs)
Solicitors:
Turner Freeman (Plaintiffs)

File Number(s): 2015/354540
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: On 24 August 2015, I published my reasons for judgment in favour of Ms Beckett in her long-running dispute with the State of New South Wales in which she alleged that she had been maliciously prosecuted for a number of offences, including two counts of solicit to murder: see Beckett v State of New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 1017. I awarded Ms Beckett damages in the amount of $4,091,717 including interest. These proceedings were commenced by Turner Freeman shortly thereafter seeking, in effect, an injunction to restrain Ms Beckett from diverting her verdict monies from Turner Freeman’s trust account, in accordance with the terms of their costs agreement and a signed authority to receive, to an account in her name. Turner Freeman sought an order for the enforcement of a lien or charge over the judgment monies. Ms Beckett responded with a cross-summons challenging the validity of the Turner Freeman costs agreement and the enforceability of an irrevocable authority to receive signed by her in 2009 in Turner Freeman’s favour. The proceedings came on promptly and on 2 December 2015 I made…

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 Goldberg v Beckett

Details

AGLC: Goldberg v Beckett [2018] NSWSC 583
Case: [2018] NSWSC 583
Decision Date: 04 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Goldberg v Beckett, the appellant, a solicitor, sought an injunction to enforce a lien over the proceeds of litigation on behalf of his client, the respondent. The dispute arose when the client attempted to divert the verdict monies into her own account in contravention of the terms of their costs agreement and an authority to receive. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the primary judge determined that the solicitor was entitled to a costs order in the sum of $50,000. The client appealed the decision, arguing that the proceedings were unnecessarily protracted and that the costs order was not appropriate.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriateness of the costs order, the necessity of the proceedings, and whether the cross-claims were appropriately pursued. The client argued that the proceedings were excessively prolonged and that the cross-claims were a misuse of the legal process. The court considered whether the specified gross sum costs order was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

The court found that the client's actions were a deliberate attempt to deprive the solicitor of his entitlement under the lien. The court also determined that the proceedings were unnecessarily protracted and that the cross-claims were not only unsuccessful but also pursued in an inappropriate manner. The court held that the costs order was justified and that the specified gross sum costs order was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The court further held that the client's actions were a misuse of the legal process and that the solicitor was entitled to recover his costs.

The final orders of the court included the enforcement of the solicitor's lien over the proceeds of litigation and the imposition of a specified gross sum costs order of $50,000 against the client. The court also noted that the client's cross-claims were without merit and were not appropriately pursued. The decision reinforces the importance of adhering to the terms of a costs agreement and the authority to receive, as well as the consequences of misusing the legal process.

Orders