Irwin Mitchell LLP v St Clair

[2025] NSWSC 1086

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Irwin Mitchell LLP v St Clair [2025] NSWSC 1086

Hearing dates:

14 July 2025 and 15 September 2025

Date of orders:

15 September 2025

Decision date:

15 September 2025

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

N Adams J

Decision:

(1) Dismiss the notice of motion filed on 6 January 2025.

(2) The applicant is to pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis.

Catchwords:

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW — foreign judgments and orders — statutory registration of judgments under Foreign Judgments Act 1992 (Cth) — motion to stay enforcement pending determination of appeal of default judgment in United Kingdom court — appeal unsuccessful — no appearance by applicant at part-hear hearing of motion — motion dismissed

Legislation Cited:

Foreign Judgments Act1991 (Cth), s 8(1)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 53.2(3)

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Irwin Mitchell LLP (Plaintiff/Respondent)
Anna St Clair (Defendant/Applicant) (self-represented)

Representation:

Counsel:

Solicitors:
Jake McKinley (Plaintiff/Respondent)

File Number(s):

2023/00424769

Publication restriction:

Nil.

JUDGMENT (REVISED FROM EX TEMPORE)

1. By amended notice of motion filed on 6 January 2025, Anna St Clair seeks an order that a foreign judgment against her registered as a debt in New South Wales be either set aside or stayed. She swore six affidavits in support of that motion, namely: on 6 January, 3 February, 18 February, 27 March, 7 April and 9 July 2025.

2. The matter came before me in my capacity as Duty Judge on 14 July 2025. On that day, I heard oral submissions from both Ms St Clair and Ms Hutchison who appeared on behalf of the judgment creditor, Irwin Mitchell LLP (“Irwin Mitchell).

3. It is unnecessary to detail all of the submissions that were made that day. Significantly, it was apparent that Ms St Clair contended that she had been attempting to appeal the default judgment that was entered against her in the United Kingdom. The significance of that is that s 8(1) of the Foreign Judgments Act1991 (Cth) provides that, “If the court in which a judgment is registered is satisfied that the judgment debtor has appealed, or is entitled and intends to appeal, against the judgment, the court may order that enforcement of the judgment be stayed pending the final determination of the appeal, until a specified day or for a specified period.”

4. There was conflicting evidence before the Court on 14 July 2025 as to whether an appeal had in fact been lodged by Ms St Clair. One of the disputes was whether her filing fee had been waived. The information received on behalf of the judgment creditor, Irwin Mitchell, was that the appeal had been lodged and that would be confirmed in 16 weeks from a specified date. In those circumstances, Ms Hutchison, who appeared for the judgment creditor, adopted the sensible approach of agreeing that these proceedings be adjourned until the question of whether that appeal had in fact been lodged could be determined. The matter was stood over until today.

5. Ms Chambers appears on behalf of the judgment creditor today. At 10:00am, there was no appearance by Ms St Clair, who is self-represented. I waited until 10:05am to come on to the Bench. When I came on to the Bench at 10:05am, there was still no appearance by Ms St Clair. My associate went outside the courtroom and called Ms St Clair’s name three times. There was no appearance by Ms St Clair.

6. I enquired of Ms Chambers as to whether she has had any communication with Ms St Clair since this matter was last in Court on 14 July 2025. Ms Chambers informed the Court that the last contact she had with Ms St Clair was in August. Ms Chambers’ instructions are that on 13 August 2025 Ms St Clair’s appeal against the judgment in the United Kingdom was dismissed.

7. I am satisfied, based on what Ms Chambers has informed the Court, that Ms St Clair is aware that her appeal in the United Kingdom was unsuccessful. I am also satisfied that Ms St Clair is aware of today’s proceedings because she was in Court on 14 July 2025 when I adjourned her motion part heard until today.

8. In the circumstances, I propose to dismiss Ms St Clair's notice of motion. I will, however, provide some background and further reasons for doing so.

9. In addition to the six affidavits sworn by the applicant, the respondent also relied upon affidavits on this motion as follows: an amended affidavit of Jacob Carswell-Doherty affirmed on 30 July 2024; an affidavit of service of Teigan Hutchison affirmed 26 November 2024; and an affidavit of Kelly Griffiths affirmed 17 March 2024.

10. I have read all of those affidavits and the chronology of these proceedings taken from those documents is as follows.

11. The applicant is a resident of New South Wales, and the respondent is a legal practitioner in the United Kingdom. By email dated 11 September 2014, the applicant sought to engage the respondent to represent her in relation to what she described as a “contentious probate case”. The next-in-time document before the Court was an email dated 28 June 2021 sent to Ms St Clair from a solicitor, Michael Walsh, on behalf of Irwin Mitchell. It enclosed a letter of engagement, terms and conditions, and other documents. Ms St Clair signed that document stating that she had read and accepted the terms and conditions set out in that letter, including the relevant fees, on 1 July 2021. A “without prejudice” letter dated 18 August 2021, which was rejected, was also relied upon by Ms St Clair.

12. The material shows that invoices for the legal services provided by Irwin Mitchell were sent to Ms St Clair at her address at 8 Boronia Road, Bullaburra New South Wales 2784. Those invoices were not paid by the plaintiff. On 7 October 2021, Irwin Mitchell rendered a bill in the amount of £12,927.45. That amount was not paid. By letter dated 6 December 2021, the County Court Money Claims Centre (“CCMCC”) advised Irwin Mitchell as to how to obtain payment outside the jurisdiction. A claim form was prepared and sent to Ms St Clair.

13. Robert Vassallo, a licensed process server, swore an affidavit on 16 February 2022 that on 25 January 2022 he served Ms St Clair with documents advising her that Irwin Mitchell had brought proceedings in the CCMCC seeking payment of the amounts outstanding.

14. At [3] of his affidavit, Mr Vassallo stated that when he served Ms St Clair he asked her whether her name was Anna M St Clair, and she replied that it was. On 18 March 2022, that affidavit of service was filed at the CCMCC. The applicant did not file any response to that claim and default judgment was subsequently entered.

15. Notice of that default judgment was sent to Ms St Clair at that same postal address on 30 January 2023 and notice of the default judgment was sent to her at her email address which appears to have remained the same throughout these proceedings.

16. Irwin Mitchell subsequently engaged the services of a Sydney lawyer in relation to registration of the judgment debt in New South Wales. Under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”) r 53.2(3), there is no requirement to give notice to a judgment debtor that a judgment will be registered.

17. On 8 August 2024, that judgment debt was registered in this Court pursuant to the Foreign Judgments Act.

18. On 9 October 2024, the judgment creditor’s office undertook a search of the Australian Electoral Roll which confirmed that Ms St Clair still resided at 8 Boronia Road, Bullaburra, and the following day they emailed her at her Hotmail address informing her that the judgment debt had been registered.

19. On 10 October 2024, Mr Sanchit Paul sent a letter to Ms St Clair by way of email advising her that she was indebted in the amount of $28,202.82 converted from pounds sterling. She was also advised of the accrual of interest. At the same time that that email was sent, a letter was sent by Express Post, including the relevant updated information.

20. Ms St Clair contacted Mr Paul on 24 October and again on 5 November 2024. On that same day, 5 November 2024, Ms St Clair emailed Teigan Hutchison, the solicitor who then had carriage of the matter at Irwin Mitchell’s Sydney law firm, seeking a stay of enforcement of the judgment debt in New South Wales until such time as a court in the United Kingdom considered her defence against the default judgment.

21. Although there was a significant degree of repetition in Ms St Clair’s affidavits, the nub of her complaint was that she denied ever being personally served with the original claim. She asserted that the process server was lying in his affidavit and made a number of other claims in relation to the propriety of actions of her former lawyers. She asserted that, contrary to her signing the fee arrangement, that it was in fact a “no win no fee” agreement. She made a number of complaints about the quality of the legal service provided to her, including that a settlement offer was made without her authorisation. Although she raised a number of matters she said she would rely upon in her defence of the proceedings in the United Kingdom, her main argument was that she had not been served.

22. Ms St Clair filed her amended motion before the Court on 6 January 2025. As I have already indicated, the orders she sought were that the registration be set aside and that there be a stay of execution so that she could defend the proceedings in the United Kingdom.

23. In relation to her argument that she had a defence in her proceedings in the United Kingdom, those proceedings were heard and dismissed. That event means that Ms St Clair's main argument in support of the orders she sought no longer applies.

24. All of the arguments that she raised at the hearing before me on 14 July 2025, both in writing and orally, went to the strength of her defence of the proceedings in the United Kingdom. There was also an argument that she was not properly served with notice of the proceedings in Australia. As to the latter of those contentions, having regard to the material before me, I am satisfied that she was properly served, but, as I have already stated, there was no requirement for her to be given notice under the UCPR that Irwin Mitchell intended to seek registration of a foreign judgment in this Court.

25. I have also had regard to the fact that the non-appearance by Ms St Clair today could be explained by the fact that she now knows that she has no reasonable argument to stay the judgment debt. Accordingly, I dismiss the notice of motion filed by Ms St Clair on 6 January 2025 and order her to pay Irwin Mitchell’s legal costs on the ordinary basis.

**********

Decision last updated: 22 September 2025