LeMass v DeVere - [2010] QSC 2

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

LeMass v DeVere & Anor [2010] QSC 2

PARTIES:

WILLIAM LeMASS as trustee of THE LeMASS LEGAL TRUST
(plaintiff)
v
MICHAEL ROBERT DeVERE
(first defendant)
and
DeVERE LEGAL PTY LTD trading as DeVERE LAWYERS QLD, BN20381992
(second defendant)

FILE NO:

4005 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

12 January 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 October 2009

JUDGE:

Daubney J

ORDERS:

1. That by 29 January 2010, the defendants serve on the plaintiff a list of the documents in the possession or under the control of the defendants which are directly relevant to work in progress, fees billed and fees recovered and all other financial data in respect of each of the client matters current as at 2 July 2007 and referred to in exhibit WLL1 to the affidavit of the plaintiff filed on 9 October 2009;

2. The defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to this application.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – DISCOVERY AND INTERROGATORIES – DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS – PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION – GENERALLY – where plaintiff applied for further disclosure – where consequent upon the exercise of an option entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant or nominee, the plaintiff and second defendant entered into a contract for the sale to the second defendant of the legal practice conducted by the plaintiff – where the first and/or second defendants failed to provide accounting reconciliations as required by the terms of the contract – where the alleged breach of contract was an allegation in issue – where the plaintiff’s solicitors provided the plaintiff’s list of documents and called on the defendants to provide their list of documents – where the defendants provided a list of documents which the plaintiff contended was deficient – where the defendants sought to resist the application by arguing the application was misconceived fundamentally and the order sought in the application was too wide – whether the defendants should be required to provide a further list of documents

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

COUNSEL:

A Morris QC with V G Brennan for the plaintiff/applicant

A Lyons for the defendants/respondents

SOLICITORS:

Carter Capner Lawyers for the plaintiff/applicant

Devere Lawyers for the defendants/respondents

This is an application by the plaintiff for further disclosure.

On 2 July 2007, consequent upon the exercise of an option which had been entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant or nominee, the plaintiff and the second defendant entered into a contract for the sale to the second defendant of the legal practice which had hitherto been conducted by the plaintiff. That contract was completed on 2 July 2007.

The parties have now fallen into dispute concerning monies which the plaintiff contends are due to be paid to the plaintiff by the second defendant (guaranteed by the first defendant) under the terms of the contract. In that regard, the amended statement of claim pleads the following:

“5.Pursuant to the contract…

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 LeMass v DeVere 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: [2010] QSC 2
Decision Date: 12 January 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of LeMass v DeVere, the plaintiff sought further disclosure from the defendants in relation to a contract for the sale of a legal practice. The plaintiff had exercised an option to purchase the practice, leading to a contract with one defendant for the sale of the practice. However, the defendants failed to provide required accounting reconciliations, prompting the plaintiff to seek further disclosure to obtain these documents. The defendants contested the application, arguing it was fundamentally misconceived and too wide-ranging.

The court was tasked with determining whether the defendants should be compelled to provide a further list of documents, specifically those related to work in progress, fees billed and recovered, and other financial data regarding client matters. The defendants argued that the application was misconceived and overly broad. The court examined the necessity of the requested documents and the relevance of these documents to the allegations of breach of contract.

In its reasoning, the court found that the plaintiff's request was not misconceived and that the documents sought were indeed relevant and necessary for the plaintiff's case. The court concluded that the defendants were required to provide the requested list of documents by a specified date. Additionally, the court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs associated with the application. This decision underscores the importance of proper disclosure in litigation, especially in cases involving complex financial transactions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That by 29 January 2010, the defendants serve on the plaintiff a list of the documents in the possession or under the control of the defendants which are directly relevant to work in progress, fees billed and fees recovered and all other financial data in respect of each of the client matters current as at 2 July 2007 and referred to in exhibit WLL1 to the affidavit of the plaintiff filed on 9 October 2009;

2. The defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to this application.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	LeMass v DeVere & Anor [2010] QSC 2
PARTIES:	WILLIAM LeMASS as trustee of THE LeMASS LEGAL TRUST (plaintiff) v MICHAEL ROBERT DeVERE (first defendant) and DeVERE LEGAL PTY LTD trading as DeVERE LAWYERS QLD, BN20381992 (second defendant)
FILE NO:	4005 of 2009
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	12 January 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 October 2009
JUDGE:	Daubney J
ORDERS:	1. That by 29 January 2010, the defendants serve on the plaintiff a list of the documents in the possession or under the control of the defendants which are directly relevant to work in progress, fees billed and fees recovered and all other financial data in respect of each of the client matters current as at 2 July 2007 and referred to in exhibit WLL1 to the affidavit of the plaintiff filed on 9 October 2009; 2. The defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to this application.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – DISCOVERY AND INTERROGATORIES – DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS – PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION – GENERALLY – where plaintiff applied for further disclosure – where consequent upon the exercise of an option entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant or nominee, the plaintiff and second defendant entered into a contract for the sale to the second defendant of the legal practice conducted by the plaintiff – where the first and/or second defendants failed to provide accounting reconciliations as required by the terms of the contract – where the alleged breach of contract was an allegation in issue – where the plaintiff’s solicitors provided the plaintiff’s list of documents and called on the defendants to provide their list of documents – where the defendants provided a list of documents which the plaintiff contended was deficient – where the defendants sought to resist the application by arguing the application was misconceived fundamentally and the order sought in the application was too wide – whether the defendants should be required to provide a further list of documents Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)
COUNSEL:	A Morris QC with V G Brennan for the plaintiff/applicant A Lyons for the defendants/respondents
SOLICITORS:	Carter Capner Lawyers for the plaintiff/applicant Devere Lawyers for the defendants/respondents