SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Levitt Robinson Solicitors v Pereira [2010] QSC 119
PARTIES:
LEVITT ROBINSON SOLICITORS
(applicants)
v
SIMONE MELISSA PEREIRA
(respondent)FILE NO:
BS 11151 of 2008
DIVISION:
Trial
PROCEEDING:
Application
DELIVERED ON:
22 April 2010
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
Application on the papers
JUDGE:
Fryberg J
ORDERS:
Application dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
Procedure – Supreme Court procedure – Queensland – Procedure under Rules of Court – Other matters – Solicitor’s withdrawal from record
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 990, r 991
SOLICITORS:
Levitt Robinson Solicitors for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent
FRYBERG J: The applicants, the solicitors for the defendant in claim 11151 of 2008 between Australian Executive Trustees Limited as plaintiff and the present respondent as defendant, have applied for leave to withdraw from the record pursuant to r 991 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999. They do so on the ground that they are unable to contact the defendant.
The evidence in support of the application is confused and incomplete. It consists simply of an affidavit a little over a page in length plus exhibits made by a solicitor employed by the applicant.
The affidavit is silent as to when and in what circumstances the solicitors were retained by the defendant, save that it records that she was referred to them by a man named Guy Castellino. It does not state what postal or e-mail addresses or what telephone number (if any) the solicitors obtained from Ms Pereira at the time they were retained. It does state that her address at the time the plaintiff issued the statement of claim (filed on 4 November 2008) was 26 Llandilo Ave, Strathfield, but it also asserts that the only contact address which the solicitors have is c/- Guy Castellino, Leichhardt Mortgage Market, 403 Parramatta Rd, Leichhardt, New South Wales 2040. That seems a little inconsistent with the particulars of the defendant which the solicitors gave in the notice of intention to defend filed on 17 April 2009. There they asserted that the defendant’s residential or business address was 26 Llandilo Ave, Strathfield, NSW 2135.
The solicitor deposed that in late October 2009 she telephoned Mr Castellino. She sets out the conversation:
“I said: ‘I have been unable to contact Simone, I have done a title search and she does not own 26 Llandilo Avenue, Strathfield.’
He said: ‘No she doesn’t own that property. She was renting it. I will get her to come in and see you.’
I said: ‘We have to withdraw from the proceedings unless we obtain further instructions from her.’
He said: ‘We will not be happy if you withdraw. I will get her to contact you.’”
She did not verify the truth of what was said in the conversation. However she deposed that a search for property in the name of Ms Pereira revealed that there was no property in New South Wales in her name.
In December 2009 the solicitors sent Ms Pereira a written notice of…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Levitt Robinson Solicitors v Pereira 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2010] QSC 119
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the firm could be permitted to withdraw from the record under the circumstances presented. The legal issues centred around the firm's obligations to its client and the potential impact of the withdrawal on the proceedings. Key considerations included the timeliness of the application, the firm's reasons for seeking withdrawal, and the consequences of the withdrawal on the client's case. The court also needed to assess the proportionality of the prejudice that would result from the withdrawal against the firm's right to withdraw.
In reaching its decision, the court thoroughly examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the firm's application was untimely and that the reasons provided for withdrawal were insufficient to justify a departure from the usual requirements. Furthermore, the court concluded that the withdrawal would cause significant prejudice to the client's case, which outweighed the firm's right to withdraw. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the firm remained on the record of the proceeding.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application dismissed.
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.