Manonai v Burns - [2010] WADC 157

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: MANONAI -v- BURNS [2010] WADC 157

CORAM: GOETZE DCJ

HEARD: 22 & 30 SEPTEMBER 2010

DELIVERED : 15 OCTOBER 2010

FILE NO/S: APP 18 of 2010

BETWEEN: KALAYA MANONAI
Appellant
AND
KHAMTIANG BURNS
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE MICHELIDES
File No  :FR 109 of 2009

Catchwords:

Unqualified interpreter in matrimonial proceedings claiming fees from litigant calculated by reference to a percentage of the settlement sum - Claim dismissed - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Mr M T S Rennie

Solicitors:

Appellant: Not applicable
Respondent: HFM Legal

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

GOETZE DCJ:

The claim

By General Procedure Claim Form 3 issued out of the Magistrates Court at Fremantle, Ms Kalaya Manonai claimed $35,126 from Ms Khamtiang Burns, plus costs.
The claim was brought pursuant to an alleged oral contract made in November 2007 by which Ms Burns was alleged to have engaged Ms Manonai to act as her representative in matrimonial proceedings seeking a property settlement from Ms Burn's husband.
More specifically, Ms Manonai claimed to have been engaged to assist Ms Burns as her "language and business interpreter". Ms Burns is illiterate in written and spoken English.
Ms Manonai claimed that the agreement provided she would be paid 10% of the total settlement of Ms Burns' matrimonial claim, plus either one of the matrimonial motor vehicles or an all expenses paid holiday to Ms Burns' home town of Khankaen in Thailand.
The value of the claim Ms Manonai calculated was later set forth in a Statement of General Procedure Claim Form 19 as follows:
$12,00010% of $120,000 cash
$7,500  10% of $75,000 superannuation
$15,000Nissan Pulsar or holiday
$2,036  10% of jewellery
$100  10% of household furniture
$6,800  Legal fees
$43,436
$8,400  Less paid
$35,036
In addition to this $35,036, Ms Manonai sought 10% of the value of the house and property in Thailand plus costs.

The defence

The defence sets out a number of matters, including the following:
(1)Ms Burns separated from her husband in 2007.
(2)She engaged solicitors to act on her behalf in her property proceedings.
(3)In October 2007, Ms Manonai:
(a)told Ms Burns that she was a lawyer;
(b)told Ms Burns that she had worked with another lawyer, David Leask for many years;
(c)suggested that Ms Burns engage Mr Leask as her lawyer;
(d)told Ms Burns that Mr Leask would charge less if he were paid in cash as he would not have to pay tax on cash fees; and
(e)told Ms Burns she would assist her.
(4)On 26 October 2007, Ms Manonai took Ms Burns to Mr Leask, who thereafter acted for Ms Burns in the matrimonial property proceedings.
(5)Prior to this meeting, Ms Manonai told Ms Burns that Mr Leask would require a cash payment of $500 and she would also require payment…

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.

Continue reading Manonai v Burns

Details

AGLC: Manonai v Burns [2010] WADC 157
Case: [2010] WADC 157
Decision Date: 15 OCTOBER 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Manonai v Burns involved a dispute over the fees claimed by an unqualified interpreter who had been engaged in matrimonial proceedings. The defendant, Manonai, sought to recover fees from the plaintiff, Burns, calculated as a percentage of the settlement sum. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the unqualified interpreter was entitled to recover the fees claimed. The court had to consider whether the interpreter's lack of qualification affected the enforceability of the fee agreement and whether the fees were reasonable and proportionate to the services rendered.

The court examined the circumstances under which the interpreter was engaged and the terms of the fee agreement. It noted that the interpreter had no formal qualifications and was not registered with any relevant professional body. The court also considered the nature of the services provided and the reasonableness of the fees claimed. Ultimately, the court held that the interpreter's lack of qualifications meant that the fee agreement was not enforceable. The court found that the fees claimed were excessive and not proportionate to the services provided. As a result, the court dismissed the claim in its entirety.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the importance of ensuring that interpreters engaged in legal proceedings are appropriately qualified and that any fee agreements are fair and reasonable. The court also highlighted the need for litigants to be aware of the qualifications of the professionals they engage and the potential consequences of relying on unqualified individuals. The court made no orders for costs.

Orders