Kim Peter Soia & Anor v Martin Lawrence Bennett Kim Peter Soia & Anor v Martin Lawrence Bennett

[2014] HCASL 248

KIM PETER SOIA & ANOR

v

MARTIN LAWRENCE BENNETT

KIM PETER SOIA & ANOR
v
MARTIN LAWRENCE BENNETT
[2014] HCASL 248
P9/2014
P10/2014

1. The first applicant and the respondent entered into a joint venture, which failed.  The first applicant had previously been a client of the respondent's law firm in relation to a matter concerning the tuition business which was conducted by the second applicant. 

2. On 16 August 2012, the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Commissioner Sleight) dismissed the applicants' claims for damages against the respondent for misleading and deceptive conduct and breach of contract.  On 21 December 2012, Commissioner Sleight made an order for costs in favour of the respondent.  His Honour concluded that it would be unjust to deny an allowance to the respondent for the provision of legal services by his law firm.  However, his Honour reduced the costs award by 50 per cent in consideration of a finding that the respondent had breached a fiduciary duty in failing to recommend that the first applicant seek independent legal advice.

3. On 5 February 2014, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Pullin, Newnes and Murphy JJA) dismissed the applicants' appeals from Commissioner Sleight's judgment and costs orders.  Their Honours also upheld the respondent's cross-appeal against reduction of the costs award, finding there was no relevant fiduciary relationship between the parties. 

4. The applicants require extensions of time in which to bring their applications for special leave to appeal to this Court.  The applications disclose no reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's finding that there was no fiduciary relationship.  Its decision in relation to costs was consistent with the authority of this Court and an appeal would be an unsuitable vehicle to consider the question of law said to arise.  Special leave should be refused.  Accordingly, there would be no utility in granting extensions of time.

5. Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the applications with costs.

S.M. Kiefel
11 December 2014 P.A. Keane