V v Elringtons Pty Ltd

Case [2018] ACAT 23

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

V v ELRINGTONS PTY LTD (Appeal) [2018] ACAT 23

AA 40/2017 (XD 323/2017)

Catchwords:             APPEAL – civil dispute – client ordered to pay lawyers’ fees, plus interest and filing fee – client’s counterclaim allowed in part for a small amount – appeal conducted as a review of decision of Original Tribunal – use of fresh evidence on appeal – role of Appeal Tribunal

Legislation cited:      ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 s 82

Subordinate
Legislation cited:      Court Procedures Rules 2006 sch 2

Cases cited:               Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172

Coal and Allied Operations Pty Limited v AustralianIndustrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194
Connelly v Allan [2011] ACTSC 170
Excel Intelligent Pty Ltd v Thomson [2018] ACAT 4
Fedorow v Fedorow [2011] ACTCA 10
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Giusida Pty Limited v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2016] ACTSC 275
House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499
Lukatela v Birch [2008] ACTSC 99
Sarbandi v Sharif [2017] ACAT 57

The Tenant v Commissioner for Social Housing [2016] ACAT 49

Tribunal:                  President G Neate AM

Date of Orders:  19 March 2018

Date of Reasons for Decision:         19 March 2018

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY          )

CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL     )  AA 40/2017

BETWEEN:

V

Appellant

AND:

ELRINGTONS PTY LTD

Respondent

TRIBUNAL:President G Neate AM

DATE:19 March 2018

ORDER

The Tribunal orders that:

1.The appeal is dismissed.

………………………………..

President G Neate AM

REASONS FOR DECISION

1.The appellant (V or Mr V[1]) engaged Elringtons Pty Ltd (Elringtons), an incorporated firm of solicitors, to act for him in Family Law proceedings involving his young daughter. Carlos Turini, a director of Elringtons and an accredited specialist in Family Law, represented Mr V at a proceeding in the Federal Circuit Court (the Court) in April 2016. The Court made orders on the understanding that they were made by consent of the parties. Mr V contended, however, that he was unhappy with at least one of the orders and with an aspect or aspects of the way in which Mr Turini conducted the matter in the Court. In July 2016, Elringtons sent Mr V an invoice in the sum of $5,500.00 (later amended to $5,475.00) for their services. Mr V did not pay it.

[1] The name of the appellant is not used because these reasons for decision include details from Family Law proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court

2.After repeated requests for payment, Elringtons commenced proceedings in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) to recover that money. Mr V filed a counterclaim for $3,900.00 and set out his grievances with respect to his legal representation. After some delays, the matter came before a senior member of the Tribunal (the Original Tribunal) for hearing on 18 September 2017.

3.In a decision delivered orally with reasons on 4 October 2017, the Original Tribunal ordered, in summary, that:

(a)Mr V pay Elringtons the sum of $5,810.38…

Continue reading V v Elringtons Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
v v Elringtons Pty Ltd (Appeal) [2018] ACAT 23
Case
[2018] ACAT 23
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of V v Elringtons Pty Ltd was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The applicant, V, sought compensation for unfair dismissal, alleging that the respondent, Elringtons Pty Ltd, had terminated their employment without just cause or notice. The respondent denied the allegations, asserting that the dismissal was for valid reasons and in accordance with the applicable employment laws.

The legal issues before the Commission involved whether the dismissal was indeed unfair, and if the respondent had acted in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to determine whether Elringtons Pty Ltd had followed the required procedural steps and whether the dismissal was within the scope of valid reasons permitted under the Act.

The Commission examined the evidence provided by both parties and considered the applicable laws and precedents. It found that the respondent had followed the required procedures for dismissal and that the reasons provided for the termination were valid. The Commission concluded that the dismissal was not unfair as it was carried out in accordance with the law and that the respondent had not acted outside the scope of the permitted reasons for termination. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the original tribunal was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal orders that:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

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.