Sali v SPC Limited

The applicant, Mr Sali, commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria against his former employing company, SPC Limited, and its solicitors, Blake Dawson. Mr Sali sought to recover retirement benefits that he alleged his company had agreed to pay him. The Supreme Court, presided over by Ormiston J, dismissed Mr Sali's claim and ordered him to pay costs. The claim against the solicitors was based on allegations that they had provided negligent advice regarding the proper method for the company to pay retirement benefits to its directors, including Mr Sali.

The High Court was required to determine the legal issues arising from Mr Sali's application for special leave to appeal against the decision of the Full Court of Victoria. A key issue concerned the proper understanding of what material was before the Full Court when it considered an earlier application for a stay of orders. Specifically, the court needed to clarify whether a particular affidavit, which appeared in the application book at page 89 and following, had been formally tendered and read to the Full Court, or if the court had merely been informed of its contents from the bar table.

The court's reasoning focused on clarifying the factual circumstances surrounding the earlier proceedings before the Full Court. Mr Sali's counsel had been under the impression that the affidavit had not been formally tendered, but a subsequent affidavit sworn by Ms Heather Jane Hibberd, counsel who appeared for the applicant before the Full Court, clarified that the affidavit had indeed been tendered and read to the court. This clarification was significant for understanding the basis upon which the Full Court had made its previous decisions.