Hubble-Marriott v Voon (No 2) - [2022] VSC 253

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:	2 May 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 May 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Hubble-Marriott v Voon (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 253

---

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 make certain payments from trust account of law practice and to refuse making other non-urgent payments – Application pursuant to Rule 54.02 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 – Re Magarey Farlam Lawyers Trust Accounts (No 3) (2007) 96 SASR 337.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Ms L Kirwan	Lander & Rogers
For the Defendant	No appearance

HIS HONOUR:

On 18 February 2022, the Victorian Legal Services Board appointed the plaintiff as manager of a law practice formerly conducted by the defendant.

On 18 March 2022, I made orders directing and approving the making of certain payments by the plaintiff from the law practice’s trust account.

On 27 April 2022, the plaintiff filed a summons seeking the Court’s direction and approval to make two further payments from the trust account of the law practice. The plaintiff also sought the Court’s direction and approval to refuse, or to abstain from, making certain other payments from the trust account. The background to this application is set out in my reasons for judgment for making the orders dated 18 March 2022 which I here adopt.[1]
[1]Hubble-Marriott v Voon [2022] VSC 152 (the previous reasons for judgment). In these reasons, I adopt the same abbreviations as defined in the previous reasons for judgment.

I heard the plaintiff’s application on 2 May 2022 and made orders substantially in the terms sought. The defendant again did not appear at the hearing of the application. These are my reasons for judgment for making those orders.

The Urgent Transactions

In relation to the approval given by the Court for the plaintiff to make certain payments from the law practice’s trust account, on 2 May 2022 I made the following order:

The Court directs and approves the plaintiff making payments from the trust account (Trust Account) of the law practice formerly conducted by the Defendant trading as Lloyd Meridian Legal (the Law Practice) to the New Trust Account (as defined in her affidavit dated 15 March 2022) comprising the funds held on trust for each of the two clients of the Law Practice who are party to the Urgent Transactions (being those transactions referred to in paragraphs 40 to 58 of the plaintiff’s affidavit dated 26 April 2022) and thereafter…

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 (No 2) 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 253
Decision Date: 20 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Hubble-Marriott, the manager of the law practice, and Voon, the lawyer whose trust account was frozen. The dispute centred around the frozen trust account and office account of the legal practice, with the manager seeking direction from the court to make certain payments and to refuse making other non-urgent payments. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The primary legal issue was whether the court should exercise its discretion under Rule 54.02 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 to make orders regarding the frozen trust account. The manager argued that certain payments should be made from the trust account, while other non-urgent payments should be refused. The court had to consider whether the manager's application was in the best interests of the clients and the legal profession.

The court found that the manager's application was reasonable and in the best interests of the clients. It noted that the frozen accounts had been a source of ongoing distress and inconvenience for the clients and that the manager's proposed payments were necessary to address urgent matters. The court also considered the precedent set in Re Magarey Farlam Lawyers Trust Accounts (No 3), where the court had exercised its discretion in a similar manner. Based on these considerations, the court made the orders sought by the manager, allowing certain payments to be made from the trust account and refusing others.

The final orders of the court allowed the manager to make payments from the trust account for specific purposes, including the payment of fees and expenses for the manager's services, the payment of outstanding debts to creditors, and the payment of costs associated with the legal proceedings. The court also directed that non-urgent payments, such as those for office supplies and utilities, should not be made from the trust account until further orders. These orders provided relief to the clients and ensured that the trust account was used for its intended purpose.

Orders