JUDGE:	Lansdowne AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 August and 15 December 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 August 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	O’Keeffe v Toop & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 421 First revision: 6 September 2018

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Summary judgment – Whether to grant summary judgment in respect of plaintiff’s allegations of negligence by defendant solicitors by reason of past proceedings concerning the retainer – Consideration of discretion – Summary judgment granted – Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), ss 7, 8, 9, 63 and 64 – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, r 23.01.

CONTRACT – Construction of a release – Whether the phrase ‘relating to this Magistrates’ Court Proceeding’ includes allegations made in the defence – Held yes – Whether release extends to allegation made in general terms in defence and particularised in current proceeding – Held that it does, in the alternative extends to allegations specifically made in earlier defence.

ANSHUN ESTOPPEL – Whether Anshun estoppel applies in respect of allegations not made specifically in defence to earlier proceeding – Held that it does.

ABUSE OF PROCESS – Whether it would be an abuse of process to re-litigate in this proceeding allegations that plaintiff was pressured by her lawyers into settlement that were the subject of previous contested proceedings against a different defendant – Held yes.

COSTS – Whether allegations that defendants breached obligations of costs disclosure may be made in this proceeding when costs have been taxed – Held yes, other than as to quantum of costs.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
The Plaintiff appeared on her own behalf
For the Defendant	Mr T Sedal	Lander & Rogers

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1

Factual background........................................................................................................................... 2

Parties and retainer....................................................................................................................... 2
Challenge to settlement of the Damages Proceeding.............................................................. 4
Taxation of costs............................................................................................................................ 7
Magistrates’ Court proceeding................................................................................................... 8

This proceeding and application.................................................................................................... 9

Issues in the proceeding.............................................................................................................. 9
Issues in this application........................................................................................................... 15
Evidence and summary of submissions.................................................................................. 16

Legal principles................................................................................................................................ 18

Summary judgment for the defendants: no real prospect of success................................. 19
Stay or judgment for the defendants: abuse of process........................................................ 20
Strike out: abuse of process....................................................................................................... 20
Issue estoppel.............................................................................................................................. 22
Anshun estoppel.......................................................................................................................... 24
Abuse of process......................................................................................................................... 29
Fresh evidence............................................................................................................................. 31
Construction of the release........................................................................................................ 33
Costs obligations......................................................................................................................... 38

Discussion.......................................................................................................................................... 43

Robson Judgment........................................................................................................................ 44
Taxation of costs.......................................................................................................................... 53
Magistrates Court proceeding and release............................................................................. 59
Magistrates’ Court Proceeding: alternative basis.................................................................. 71
Summary of conclusions............................................................................................................ 75

Discretion........................................................................................................................................... 76

Conclusion and orders.................................................................................................................... 77

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

This proceeding commenced by writ and general indorsement filed by the plaintiff on 22 April 2016. The plaintiff filed her statement of claim on 5 October 2016. She alleges breach of retainer and negligence by the defendants in the conduct of a WorkCover damages claim for her in the period…

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 O'Keeffe v Toop

Details

AGLC: O'Keeffe v Toop [2018] VSC 421
Case: [2018] VSC 421
Decision Date: 2 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, O'Keeffe, brought an action against the defendant, Toop, alleging professional negligence in relation to legal services provided in a previous matter. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. O'Keeffe sought damages for the defendant's alleged negligence in handling a matter that had previously been the subject of contested proceedings between O'Keeffe and another party. The defendant applied for summary judgment on the basis that O'Keeffe's claims were barred by a release agreement and Anshun estoppel, and that re-litigation of certain allegations would constitute an abuse of process.

The court had to determine whether the release agreement, which referenced "this Magistrates’ Court Proceeding," covered the allegations O'Keeffe was making in the current proceeding. The court also had to consider whether Anshun estoppel applied to allegations not specifically raised in the previous defence, and whether it would be an abuse of process to re-litigate certain allegations. Finally, the court needed to decide whether O'Keeffe could bring claims regarding costs disclosure in this proceeding despite the costs having been taxed in the previous matter.

The court found that the release agreement did cover the allegations O'Keeffe was making, as it included both the allegations made in the defence and those particularised in the current proceeding. The court also held that Anshun estoppel applied to allegations not specifically raised in the previous defence. However, the court ruled that it would be an abuse of process to re-litigate the allegations that O'Keeffe was pressured into settlement, as these were the subject of previous contested proceedings. The court further found that O'Keeffe could bring claims regarding costs disclosure, other than as to the quantum of costs, despite the costs having been taxed in the previous matter.

The court granted the defendant's application for summary judgment, dismissing O'Keeffe's claims. The court held that the release agreement and Anshun estoppel barred O'Keeffe's claims, and that re-litigating certain allegations would be an abuse of process. The court also found that O'Keeffe's claims regarding costs disclosure were not precluded by the previous taxation of costs.

Orders