Goldberg v Beckett - [2017] NSWSC 1075

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Goldberg v Beckett [2017] NSWSC 1075
Hearing dates: 31 March 2017, 14 August 2017
Date of orders: 18 August 2017
Decision date: 18 August 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
(1) Make no order with respect to Ms Beckett’s notice of motion filed on 5 April 2017.
(2) Stand over the notice of motion for directions on 3 November 2017.
(3) Reserve the costs of that motion, including the costs of appearances before me between 31 March 2017 and 14 August 2017.
(4) Grant liberty to the parties to apply on 7 days’ notice.

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether monies deposited in a controlled account should be transferred to an account earning a higher interest rate – whether the first defendant should be a signatory to such account – whether the interest rate on the current account is unfairly disadvantageous to the first defendant – where there has been delay and complication in transferring funds – where costs generated by litigation are disproportionate to potential loss alleged – where proceedings brought about by the notice of motion were neither cost nor time effective – where the position can be further considered following completion of the costs assessment process
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Supreme Court Act 1970
Cases Cited: Goldberg v Beckett [2016] NSWSC 1646
Grassby v R (1989) 168 CLR 1; [1989] HCA 45
Category: Procedural and other rulings
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:
K Rees SC with J McDonald (Plaintiffs)
T H Bray (First Defendant)
Solicitors:
Turner Freeman (Plaintiffs)
Thomas Henry Bray Lawyer (First Defendant)

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

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: On 23 November 2016, I published my reasons for judgment in a dispute between the parties about how certain funds in court should be treated pending final assessment of Turner Freeman’s costs of acting as Ms Beckett’s solicitor in the principal litigation between her and the State of New South Wales: see Goldberg v Beckett [2016] NSWSC 1646. I directed that the parties bring in short minutes of order to reflect my conclusions.
Short minutes of order dated 12 December 2016, signed by the legal representatives of the parties, were subsequently agreed to in the following terms:

The plaintiffs and the first defendant’s solicitor, DGT Costs lawyers (DGT), are to establish a joint controlled money account with Westpac Banking Corporation, such account to be in the names of the plaintiffs and DGT in accordance with the provisions of Division 3 of Part 4.2 of the Legal Profession Uniform General Rules 2015 (Controlled Money Account).

The balance of the monies held in Court by the Finance Division including any interest on those funds, be paid into the Controlled Money Account, to abide the outcome of the assessment of the plaintiffs’ costs of acting for the first defendant in…

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 [2017] NSWSC 1075
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1075
Decision Date: 18 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceedings arose from a dispute between Goldberg and Beckett concerning the management and interest rates of funds deposited in a controlled account. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Goldberg sought an order that the funds be transferred to an account with a higher interest rate, while Beckett opposed the transfer and argued that the interest rate on the current account was not unfairly disadvantageous. The case involved complex procedural issues regarding the administration of the funds and the costs associated with the litigation.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the monies deposited in the controlled account should be transferred to an account earning a higher interest rate. This question necessitated a consideration of whether Beckett, as the first defendant, should be a signatory to the new account and whether the interest rate on the current account was unfairly disadvantageous to Beckett. The court also had to address the delay and complications in transferring the funds and the disproportionate costs generated by the litigation relative to the potential loss alleged. Furthermore, the court assessed the effectiveness of the proceedings brought about by the notice of motion in terms of both cost and time.

In addressing these issues, the court found that the delay and complications in transferring the funds, coupled with the disproportionate costs relative to the potential loss, did not justify an immediate transfer to a higher interest-earning account. The court held that the position could be further considered following the completion of the costs assessment process. The court also determined that the proceedings brought about by the notice of motion were neither cost nor time effective. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The court ordered that the application be dismissed, with the understanding that the matter would be reconsidered following the completion of the costs assessment process. The court further indicated that the costs of the application were to be borne by Goldberg.

Orders