Hubble-Marriott v Voon - [2022] VSC 152

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
TRUSTS, EQUITY AND PROBATE LIST

S ECI 2022 00846

MARIKA HUBBLE-MARRIOTT AS MANAGER OF THE LAW PRACTICE OF ROLAND LIT JEN VOON (ABN 67 849 568 437) TRADING AS LLOYD MERIDIAN LEGAL	Plaintiff
v
ROLAND LIT JEN VOON	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Moore J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 March 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 March 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Hubble-Marriott v Voon
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 152

---

LEGAL PRACTICE – Trust accounts – Manager appointed to legal practice – Trust account and office account of legal account frozen – Manager seeking direction from the court to settle clients’ conveyancing transactions – Application pursuant to Rule 54.02 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 – Hannan v Zindilis (2016) 51 VR 178.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr S Senathirajah QC with Ms L Kirwan	Lander & Rogers
For the Defendant	No appearance

HIS HONOUR:

On 18 February 2022, the plaintiff was appointed by the Victorian Legal Services Board (the Board) under s 334 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law[1] as manager of the law practice known as ‘Lloyd Meridian Legal’ (the law practice). The defendant had been the sole operator of the law practice prior to the plaintiff’s appointment.
[1]The Legal Profession Uniform Law is contained in schedule 1 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (Vic).

The plaintiff was appointed manager of the law practice after two clients of the law practice lodged claims for compensation against the Fidelity Fund maintained by the Board (the claimants). Those claims were lodged on 7 February 2022. The claimants allege that, since 2014, they had deposited substantial funds into the law practice’s trust account in respect of a number of property transactions and migration applications and that $591,633.92 of these trust moneys have been withdrawn without their authorisation (the alleged trust account deficiency).

After these claims were made, the Board appointed a compliance auditor in relation to the law practice. The defendant was given until 16 February 2022 to either meet with the Board, or to engage with the compliance auditor. The defendant did not respond to these requests within the stipulated time; the plaintiff was then appointed as manager of the law practice.

Upon her appointment on 18 February 2022, in light of the claims made on the Fidelity Fund and the allegation that funds had been withdrawn from the law practice’s trust account without authorisation, the plaintiff took steps to freeze the operation of the law practice’s trust account (the trust account) and general office account (the general office account). The plaintiff also opened a further trust account for the law practice for future trust transactions which may be processed during the period of her management (the new trust account).

As at February 2022, the law practice was conducting about 266 active conveyancing files and held…

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 Hubble-Marriott v Voon 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: [2022] VSC 152
Decision Date: 29 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hubble-Marriott v Voon is a case before the Supreme Court of Victoria concerning the management and operation of trust accounts within a legal practice. The dispute arose when both the trust account and the office account of the legal practice were frozen, impeding the manager's ability to settle clients' conveyancing transactions. The manager, Hubble-Marriott, sought directions from the court to resolve the issue and facilitate the completion of outstanding transactions.

The central legal issue for the court was whether the manager could be granted the necessary directions to settle the conveyancing transactions despite the freezing of the accounts. The court had to consider the relevant rules and case law, particularly the principles established in Hannan v Zindilis, which provide guidance on the management of legal practitioners' trust accounts.

In its decision, the court reviewed the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 and the precedent set by Hannan v Zindilis. The court recognised the importance of ensuring that clients' funds are protected and that the legal practice adheres to the required standards. After considering the circumstances and the submissions made by the manager, the court concluded that granting the directions was in the best interest of the clients and the administration of justice. The court found that the manager could proceed with settling the conveyancing transactions under certain conditions and safeguards.

The final orders of the court included directions for the manager to follow a specific process to settle the outstanding transactions, ensuring that clients' funds were protected and that the legal practice complied with the necessary requirements. The court also emphasised the importance of maintaining accurate records and providing regular updates to the court regarding the progress of the transactions. This case highlights the critical role of trust accounts in the legal profession and the need for strict adherence to the rules governing their management.

Orders