Tripodi v JT Law and Tomaras - [2021] NSWLC 2

Local Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Tripodi v JT Law & Tomaras [2021] NSWLC 2
Hearing dates: 22 October 2020, 22 February 2021, 24 June 2021
Date of orders: 06 August 2021
Decision date: 06 August 2021
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Antrum LCM
Decision:
(1) Judgment for the plaintiff as against the first defendant in the sum of $34,650.
(2) The first defendant to pay the filing and service fees of the plaintiff.
(3) The first defendant to pay the plaintiff interest on the judgment debt pursuant to s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act2005 from 7 February 2020 to the date of judgment.
(4) The claim against the second defendant is dismissed.
(5) No order as to costs.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Direct access briefing – solicitor/barrister relationship – cost agreements – intention of the parties – corporate veil

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW)
Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015
Trade Practices Act 1974

Cases Cited:
Dimos v Hanos & Egan [2001] VSC 173
Doe d. Bennett v Hale [1850] EngR 508
Holloway v Madgwicks [2018] VSC 773
New South Wales Bar Association v Livesey [1982] 2 NSWLR 231
Peate v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1964) 111 CLR 443
Universal Steam Navigation Company Ltd v James McKelvie and Company (1923) AC 492

Texts Cited:
HHL Bellot, The Exclusion of Attorneys from the Inns of Court, (1910) 26 Law Quarterly Review 137
Working with Barristers, 3 ed., Law Society of NSW, 2017

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Riccardo Tripodi (Plaintiff)
JT Law Pty Ltd trading as Tomaras Lawyers (First Defendant)
John Tomaras (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Self-represented (Plaintiff)

Tsovaras Legal (First and Second Defendants)

File Number(s): 2020/29258

Judgment

Richard Tripodi is a barrister and has commenced proceedings in the General Division of the Local Court of New South Wales against JT Law Pty Ltd trading as Tomaras Lawyers as a first defendant, and the principal and solicitor director of the first defendant, Mr John Tomaras as the second defendant.
An Amended Statement of Claim was filed with the court on 7 February 2020 and it claims relief in the nature of a money claim for a liquidated debt and interest pursuant to s100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.
The claim in principal is for a sum of $34,650 which the plaintiff claims is an amount owing by the defendants, jointly and/or severally, for work performed by the plaintiff at the request of the defendants.
The defendants deny liability and submit that the plaintiff’s contract for the payment of fees was with a client of the defendant, Messrs Antonio and Adrian Mastronardo. More particularly, the defendants say that the Mastronardos had retained the plaintiff on a direct retainer basis to act for them in proceedings which can be described as the “Remo 97” matter.

A Cautionary Tale

This is yet another one of those matters that should serve as a cautionary tale for all legal practitioners. It is…

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 Tripodi v JT Law and Tomaras 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: [2021] NSWLC 2
Decision Date: 06 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tripodi v JT Law and Tomaras involved a dispute over legal fees between the plaintiff, Tripodi, and the first defendant, JT Law, as well as the second defendant, Tomaras. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Tripodi sought to recover legal fees from JT Law, which he claimed were owed by Tomaras, a company of which Tomaras was the sole director and shareholder. The central issue before the court was whether JT Law was liable for the fees claimed by Tripodi under a cost agreement between JT Law and Tomaras.

The court had to determine whether the terms of the cost agreement between JT Law and Tomaras bound Tripodi, and whether Tomaras could be held liable for the fees despite being the sole director and shareholder of the company. The court examined the intention of the parties in entering the cost agreement and the nature of the relationship between JT Law and Tomaras. It was held that the cost agreement did bind Tripodi and that Tomaras was liable for the fees, as there was no evidence to suggest that the corporate veil should be pierced to hold Tomaras personally liable. The court found that the intention of the parties was clear and that Tomaras, as the sole director and shareholder, was responsible for the fees.

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favour of Tripodi, ordering JT Law to pay the fees claimed, along with interest and costs. The claim against Tomaras was dismissed as it was determined that the corporate veil would not be pierced in this instance. No order was made as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Judgment for the plaintiff as against the first defendant in the sum of $34,650.

(2) The first defendant to pay the filing and service fees of the plaintiff.

(3) The first defendant to pay the plaintiff interest on the judgment debt pursuant to s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 from 7 February 2020 to the date of judgment.

(4) The claim against the second defendant is dismissed.

(5) No order as to costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Tripodi v JT Law & Tomaras [2021] NSWLC 2
Hearing dates:	22 October 2020, 22 February 2021, 24 June 2021
Date of orders:	06 August 2021
Decision date:	06 August 2021
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Antrum LCM
Decision:	(1) Judgment for the plaintiff as against the first defendant in the sum of $34,650. (2) The first defendant to pay the filing and service fees of the plaintiff. (3) The first defendant to pay the plaintiff interest on the judgment debt pursuant to s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act2005 from 7 February 2020 to the date of judgment. (4) The claim against the second defendant is dismissed. (5) No order as to costs.
Catchwords:	CIVIL PROCEDURE – Direct access briefing – solicitor/barrister relationship – cost agreements – intention of the parties – corporate veil
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 Trade Practices Act 1974
Cases Cited:	Dimos v Hanos & Egan [2001] VSC 173 Doe d. Bennett v Hale [1850] EngR 508 Holloway v Madgwicks [2018] VSC 773 New South Wales Bar Association v Livesey [1982] 2 NSWLR 231 Peate v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1964) 111 CLR 443 Universal Steam Navigation Company Ltd v James McKelvie and Company (1923) AC 492
Texts Cited:	HHL Bellot, The Exclusion of Attorneys from the Inns of Court, (1910) 26 Law Quarterly Review 137 Working with Barristers, 3 ed., Law Society of NSW, 2017
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Riccardo Tripodi (Plaintiff) JT Law Pty Ltd trading as Tomaras Lawyers (First Defendant) John Tomaras (Second Defendant)
Representation:	Self-represented (Plaintiff) Tsovaras Legal (First and Second Defendants)
File Number(s):	2020/29258