Legal Research
Cases
Sivritas v Sivritas

Sivritas v Sivritas

Case [2009] VSC 644 17 December 2009

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA	Not Restricted
AT MELBOURNE COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION PRACTICE COURT

No. 7788 of 2006

MUHARREM (“HARRY”) SIVRITAS	Plaintiff
v
ALI SIVRITAS AND OTHERS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	HABERSBERGER J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	9 AND 17 DECEMBER 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 DECEMBER 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	SIVRITAS v SIVRITAS
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 644

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Money held in solicitor’s trust account pursuant to Court order – Application for payment to the plaintiff’s former lawyers pursuant to the Court order – Whether dependent on plaintiff’s complaints to the Legal Services Commissioner being resolved – Construction of Court order.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr Sivritas in person
For the Plaintiff’s Former	Mr J R Dixon SC	FLA Partners
Lawyers

_________________________________________________________________________________
HIS HONOUR:

On 15 May 2009, Kyrou J pronounced judgment in this proceeding. His Honour made an order that there be a sale of a particular piece of real estate by public auction to be conducted by the Prothonotary. The judgment went on to give directions about how the sale was to be conducted and what was to happen to the proceeds of sale. The judgment provided that the Prothonotary was to engage a law firm to prepare contracts and other documents and perform all conveyancing and legal work associated with the auction and the sale under the direction of the Prothonotary.
The Victorian Government Solicitor was engaged by the Prothonotary and pursuant to the judgment, the proceeds of sale were paid into that solicitor's trust account. Paragraph 18 of the judgment sets out how the proceeds of sale were to be applied. Relevantly sub-paragraph (e) provided that:
fifthly, 73.61% of the balance be paid as follows:
(i) $81,781 shall be retained in the Law Firm's trust account until either the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's former lawyers reach agreement on the disposition of this amount and jointly direct the Law Firm in writing accordingly or until further order;
(ii) the balance shall be paid to the plaintiff.
In paragraph 7 of the Other Matters part of the judgment made on 15 May 2009, the following was stated:
The plaintiff has agreed to the amount of $81,781 being retained in trust and being dealt with in accordance with paragraph 18(e) of this Judgment on the basis that this does not affect his legal rights against the Plaintiff's former lawyers and his rights in relation to that amount. He has informed the Court that he has lodged a complaint with the Legal Services Commissioner against the Plaintiff's former lawyers and wants that complaint and other disputes he has with them to be resolved before an order is made regarding who is entitled to the amount of $81,781 or any part of that amount.
The sum of $81,781 was the amount of the final bill rendered by the plaintiff's former solicitors, FLA Partners, on 23 December 2008. By a summons dated 26 October 2009 the plaintiff's former…

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 Sivritas v Sivritas

Details

AGLC: Sivritas v Sivritas [2009] VSC 644
Case: [2009] VSC 644
Decision Date: 17 DECEMBER 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sivritas v Sivritas, the applicant, Sivritas, sought an order for payment of funds held in a solicitor’s trust account to her former legal representatives. The application arose from a previous order that mandated the payment of money to the applicant’s former lawyers, subject to certain conditions. The primary dispute was whether the payment to the applicant’s former lawyers was contingent upon the resolution of complaints the applicant had lodged with the Legal Services Commissioner. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to interpret the terms of the original order and determine if the payment to the applicant’s former lawyers was contingent upon the resolution of the complaints lodged with the Legal Services Commissioner. This involved a careful analysis of the language used in the order and the context in which it was made. The court needed to discern whether the order was absolute or conditional, and if so, to what extent.

In its reasoning, the court noted that the order was clear and unambiguous. The language used did not impose any conditions other than those explicitly stated. The court held that the payment to the applicant’s former lawyers was not contingent on the resolution of the complaints with the Legal Services Commissioner. The order was absolute, and the conditions precedent were limited to those specified within the order itself. Consequently, the applicant was entitled to the payment of the funds held in the solicitor’s trust account.

The court ordered that the funds be paid to the applicant’s former lawyers in accordance with the terms of the original order. The court made it clear that the payment was not dependent on any external conditions such as the resolution of the complaints with the Legal Services Commissioner. This decision provided clarity on the scope and conditions of the original order, ensuring that the applicant’s former lawyers were compensated as directed by the court.

Orders