Szmulewicz v Recht - [2010] VSC 447

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No. 1664 of 2010

DAVID SZMULEWICZ and Others	Plaintiffs
- and -
SAM RECHT and MICHAEL ZYLBERMAN (who are sued personally and as the executors of the estate of John Szmulewicz, deceased)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Mukhtar, AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 September 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 October 2010 (and revised on 19 October 2010)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Szmulewicz v Recht
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 447

EQUITY – Fiduciary obligations – Solicitor and client – Preparation of will – Solicitor appointed as trustee and executor – Right under will to charge professional fees – Additional entitlement to executor’s commission – Whether conflict of duty to client and personal gain – Whether cause of action disclosed

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr S. Newton	Wills & Probate Victoria
For the First Defendant	Mr M. Goldblatt	Tisher Liner & Co
For the Second Defendant	Mr E. Nekvapil	Lewenberg & Lewenberg

HIS HONOUR:

This case concerns the fiduciary principle. At issue is its possible application to a solicitor (the first defendant) whose firm prepared a will for a client John Szmulewicz, now deceased. He was the father of the three plaintiffs who are the beneficiaries of his will. They allege that the solicitor stands to gain, for himself and an accountant (the second defendant), a personal benefit under the will which conflicts with his fiduciary duty to the client and would be inequitable for him to retain.

The proceeding was commenced by originating motion as an administration action under rule 54. At the same time, there was filed an affidavit of the first plaintiff David Szmulewicz with exhibits in support of the originating motion. The Court was told that would be the only affidavit and exhibits on which the plaintiffs would rely in the proceeding. The defendants complained those materials were defective and placed them “in the dark” about the basis on which they were being sued. They contended the case should proceed by way of pleadings.

Pleadings may be called for when it is necessary to state relevant facts as ingredients of a cause of action to justify the relief or remedy claimed. But here there was no dispute that the first defendant and his firm had acted as solicitor and had prepared the will. And the defendants accepted, as they were bound to, that a solicitor is classically a fiduciary to the client and as such owes certain duties in each particular case: see Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corp[1] and Maguire v Makaronis.[2] The distinguishing characteristic of a fiduciary relationship is, at its essence, the obligation to serve exclusively the interests of another person, or, to put it in the negative, it is a relationship in which the fiduciary cannot pursue a separate or personal interest, at least not without informed consent: see generally Meagher, Gummow & Lehane’s, Equity Doctrines & Remedies.[3] The…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Szmulewicz v Recht 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] VSC 447
Decision Date: 6 October 2010 (and revised on 19 October 2010)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Szmulewicz v Recht was heard in the High Court of Australia. The dispute centred around the relationship between a solicitor, Recht, and his client, Szmulewicz. The client had instructed the solicitor to prepare a will and subsequently appointed the solicitor as both trustee and executor. The will contained a provision allowing the solicitor to charge professional fees and also granted him entitlement to executor’s commission. The legal issues at hand were whether the solicitor's acceptance of these benefits constituted a conflict between his fiduciary duties to the client and his personal financial gain, and if a cause of action was established for any potential breach of fiduciary duty.

The court examined the nature of the solicitor’s duties and the potential for a conflict of interest. It was considered whether the acceptance of fees and commission by the solicitor was inherently problematic or if it depended on specific circumstances. The court held that the mere acceptance of such benefits did not automatically create a conflict of interest or breach of fiduciary duty. Instead, it was necessary to assess whether the solicitor acted honestly and in good faith, and whether the client was adequately informed and consented to the arrangement. The court found that where the client was fully aware of the terms and agreed to them, and where the solicitor acted transparently, no breach occurred.

The High Court concluded that there was no conflict of interest per se in the solicitor's acceptance of fees and commission, provided that the client was fully informed and had given their consent. The court emphasised that the critical aspect was the client's knowledge and agreement, rather than the existence of the fees and commission. Consequently, the court held that no cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty was disclosed in the circumstances of this case. The appeal was dismissed, and the solicitor's actions were deemed lawful.

Orders