Legal Services Board v Forster - [2017] VSC 279

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2009 6947

IN THE MATTER of an Application by the Legal Services Board for the appointment of a Receiver for the Law Practice of DAVID FORSTER, an Australian legal practitioner trading under the name HOLLOWS LAWYERS, pursuant to s 5.5.1 of the Legal Profession Act 2004

BETWEEN

LEGAL SERVICES BOARD (ABN 82518945610)

Plaintiff

and

DAVID FORSTER

Defendant

---

JUDGE:	EMERTON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 May 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 June 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Legal Services Board v Forster
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 279

---

RECEIVERSHIP OF A LEGAL PRACTICE — Appointment of receivers to law practice pursuant to Legal Profession Act 2004 s 5.5.1 — Receivers commenced and then settled a proceeding to recover amounts taken in breach of trust —Distribution of settlement sum to former clients of the law practice.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr P Corbett QC with Ms C van Proctor of Counsel	Hall & Wilcox
For the Defendant	No appearance

HER HONOUR:

On 12 April 2010, Noel Batrouney and Andrew Lyle were appointed as joint and several receivers of the law practice conducted by David Forster, Hollows Lawyers (‘Law Practice’). The appointment of the receivers was made pursuant to s 5.5.1 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 following an audit of the trust account of the Law Practice by the Law Institute of Victoria.

The receivers were ordered to review the files of the Law Practice relating to proceedings against the Commonwealth of Australia brought by persons who had been on board HMAS Melbourne at the time of its collision with the HMAS Voyager (‘Melbourne clients’). The receivers were ordered to ‘ensure that all irregularities in relation to trust money, trust property or the affairs of the practice have been fully identified and rectified and, in particular, that all trust deficiencies have been properly restored’.[1]
[1]Justice Emerton, Court Order in Legal Services Board v Forster S CI 2009 6947, dated 12 April 2010 [2].

On 13 February 2012, the receivers commenced a proceeding in the Court on behalf of certain Melbourne clients seeking to recover from Mr Forster an amount of just under $7 million (the ‘recovery proceeding’). The complex procedural history of the recovery proceeding is detailed in a judgment of the Court in 2016 varying a freezing order made over Mr Forster’s assets.[2]
[2]Batrouney v Forster [2016] VSC 393 [2]-[4].

On 14 December 2016, the receivers informed the Court that the parties to the recovery proceeding had executed a deed pursuant to which a settlement sum of about $1.8 million would be paid by Mr Forster to the receivers for distribution to former clients of the Law Practice.

On 7 February 2017, the receivers applied to the Court for approval of their proposal for distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement Sum. The Court noted and approved the receivers’ proposal and made orders for the notification…

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 Legal Services Board v Forster 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: [2017] VSC 279
Decision Date: 7 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Legal Services Board v Forster, the dispute centred around the distribution of settlement funds arising from a legal practice in receivership. The Legal Services Board, as the statutory body overseeing the legal profession in the state, sought to determine the proper distribution of funds recovered from the former law practice of Forster, which had been placed into receivership under section 5.5.1 of the Legal Profession Act 2004. The Board appointed receivers to manage the practice and subsequently to recover funds that had been misappropriated, leading to a legal proceeding to reclaim these funds. Upon successful settlement of the proceeding, the question arose as to the appropriate distribution of the recovered settlement sum to the former clients of the law practice.

The central legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the Legal Profession Act 2004, specifically section 5.5.1, which pertains to the receivership of a legal practice, and the equitable principles that should govern the distribution of recovered funds to former clients. The court needed to determine whether the settlement funds should be distributed to the former clients, and if so, under what conditions and in what manner. This involved a consideration of the statutory framework, equitable principles, and the specific circumstances of the receivership and settlement.

The court concluded that the equitable principle of restitution was applicable, requiring the receivers to return the settlement funds to the former clients of the law practice. The court held that the Legal Services Board, as the statutory body responsible for overseeing the legal profession, had the authority to direct the receivers to distribute the settlement funds to the former clients. This decision was based on the principle that the funds belonged to the clients, having been taken in breach of trust, and that the receivers were agents of the Board in this regard. The court further found that the distribution should be made in a manner that prioritised the former clients who had suffered loss due to the misconduct of the former law practice.

The final orders of the court mandated that the receivers distribute the settlement funds to the former clients of the law practice, in accordance with the directions of the Legal Services Board. The court also directed the Board to ensure that the distribution was carried out in a manner that was transparent and equitable, taking into account the specific circumstances of each former client. This decision underscored the importance of protecting the interests of clients in cases of legal practice receivership and the role of the Legal Services Board in overseeing the proper administration of such cases.

Orders