Golden v Koffel - [2021] NSWSC 739

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Golden v Koffel [2021] NSWSC 739
Hearing dates: 18 June 2021
Date of orders: 18 June 2021
Decision date: 18 June 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Cavanagh J
Decision:
The proceedings are dismissed. The plaintiff to pay the defendants’ costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the motion.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Summary disposal — Dismissal of proceedings — No reasonable cause of action or defence — UCPR rr 13.4 and 14.28 — where plaintiff sued his former solicitors — Advocates’ immunity — work done in and out of court

Legislation Cited:
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd (2016) 259 CLR 1
D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1
General Steel Industries v Commissioner of Railways NSW (1964) 112 CLR 125
Giannarelli v Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543
Golden v V’landys [2015] NSWSC 1709
Golden v V’landys [2016] NSWCA 300

Category: Consequential orders
Parties: Joseph Paul Golden (Plaintiff)
Ross Koffel (First Defendant)
Koffels Pty Ltd (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
I Griscti (First and Second Defendants)
Solicitors:
Plaintiff (Self-represented)
Gilchrist Connell (First and Second Defendants)

File Number(s): 2020/00322134
Publication restriction: Nil

EX TEMPORE Judgment (REVISED)

This matter comes before the court today by way of a notice of motion filed by the defendants on 16 March 2021, pursuant to which the defendants seek orders that:

The proceedings be dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), and, in the alternative,

The amended statement of claim filed on 26 November 2020 be struck out in whole or in part pursuant to Rule 14.28 UCPR.

The plaintiff appears in person. Ivan Griscti of counsel appears on behalf of the defendants.
The defendants read an affidavit of Alexander Boyd Haslam sworn 16 March 2021. The plaintiff read and relied upon a number of his own affidavits, being affidavits of 2 February 2021, 13 April 2021, 4 May 2021, and 11 May 2021.
Both parties provided helpful submissions.

Background

The plaintiff is or was an accountant. In the mid-2000s he became involved in the racing industry and became a professional horse trainer and owner, as well as pursuing other interests. As is well known, in approximately 2007 the equine influenza virus affected a large number of horses in Australia. The Commonwealth Government established the Commercial Horse Assistance Payment Scheme (CHAPS) for the purposes of providing some form of compensation to both horse trainers and horse owners.
In the late 2000s, that is in and around 2009/2010, the plaintiff raised a number of concerns about the way in which the CHAPS scheme was being administered by Racing New South Wales. On 10 May 2011 the plaintiff wrote a letter addressed to the general manager at Racing New South Wales making allegations about the conduct of Racing New South Wales and the way in which it had allegedly interfered in his racing programme. Subsequent to the sending of that letter, the plaintiff…

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 Golden v Koffel

Details

AGLC: Golden v Koffel [2021] NSWSC 739
Case: [2021] NSWSC 739
Decision Date: 18 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in Golden v Koffel arose when the plaintiff, Golden, sued his former solicitors, Koffel, for professional negligence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had acted negligently in the preparation of legal documents and in the advice given in relation to a business transaction. The defendants sought to have the proceedings dismissed on the grounds that there was no reasonable cause of action or defence.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's claims had any merit and whether the defendants' work was protected by advocates' immunity. The court examined whether the work done by the defendants was in the course of advocacy, and therefore protected, or whether it fell outside the scope of that protection. The court also had to consider whether there were any grounds on which the plaintiff's claims could be said to have a reasonable prospect of success.

The court found that the plaintiff's claims were not supported by any evidence and that the work done by the defendants was protected by advocates' immunity. The court held that the plaintiff's claims were frivolous and vexatious and that there was no reasonable cause of action. The court therefore dismissed the proceedings under UCPR rr 13.4 and 14.28. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the proceeding.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims against his former solicitors and ordered him to pay the defendants' costs. The court found that the plaintiff's claims were not supported by any evidence and that the work done by the defendants was protected by advocates' immunity. The court held that the proceedings were an abuse of the process of the court and that there was no reasonable cause of action.

Orders