Legal Services Board v Forster

In the case of Legal Services Board v Forster, the Legal Services Board sought to vary a freezing order over the proceeds of sale of a property owned by the defendant, which was at the location where he formerly conducted his legal practice. The defendant, Forster, faced several legal proceedings relating to his conduct in his legal practice, and the Board argued that he was using the proceeds of the property sale to fund his legal expenses and other living costs. The defendant had not disclosed his benefits in a superannuation fund that held a substantial share portfolio, and evidence showed that he had been accessing assets of the fund. The court had to decide whether Forster had the means to meet his expenses in defending the proceedings.

The court held that the onus was on Forster to establish that he did not have the means to meet his expenses. It found that Forster had not discharged this onus, as he had failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he could not meet his expenses from his own resources. The court noted that Forster had a substantial share portfolio in his superannuation fund and had been accessing those assets, which suggested that he had the means to fund his legal expenses and other living costs. The court also found that Forster had not provided sufficient evidence to show that he did not have access to other resources to meet his expenses.

The Legal Services Board's application to vary the freezing order was dismissed, as Forster had not established that he did not have the means to meet his expenses in defending the proceedings. The court emphasised the importance of the onus being on the defendant to establish that he did not have the means to meet his expenses, and that the defendant had failed to discharge this onus. The court found that Forster had a substantial share portfolio in his superannuation fund and had been accessing those assets, which suggested that he had the means to fund his legal expenses and other living costs. The court held that Forster had not provided sufficient evidence to show that he did not have access to other resources to meet his expenses. The orders made by the court were that the application to vary the freezing order was dismissed, and the freezing order remained in place.