Woolworths Ltd v. Shine Lawyers

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Woolworths Ltd v Shine Lawyers [2007] QSC 234

PARTIES:

WOOLWORTHS LIMITED ACN 000 014 675
(applicant)
v
SHINE LAWYERS (A FIRM)
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 6706 of 2007

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

DELIVERED ON:

5 September 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 August 2007

JUDGE:

de Jersey CJ

ORDER:

Application dismissed, with costs to be assessed

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – DUTIES AND LIABILITIES – SOLICITOR AND CLIENT – RETAINER – CHALLENGING RETAINER – where applicant sought order restraining respondent law firm from continuing to act for a plaintiff – where applicant submitted solicitor of respondent firm would need to give evidence at trial of plaintiff’s claim and question of solicitor’s credibility would arise – whether evidence of legal advice would be required at trial – whether any need for Court to restrain respondent firm from continuing to act for plaintiff

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)

Legal Profession (Solicitors) Rule 2007 (Qld), cl 13.4

Chapman v Rogers, ex parte Chapman [1984] 1 Qd R 542, considered
Jeffery v Associated National Insurance Co Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 238, cited
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298, cited
Kallinicos and Anor v Huntand Ors (2005) 64 NSWLR 561, applied

COUNSEL:

R T Whiteford for the applicant
R A I Myers for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

DLA Phillips Fox for the applicant
Shine Lawyers for the respondent

1. de JERSEY CJ:  The defendant Woolworths Ltd seeks an order restraining the respondent firm of solicitors, Shine Lawyers, from continuing to act as the solicitors for the plaintiff Mr Mervyn Parry.  The application is based on the prospect that at the trial of the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant, it will be necessary for the respondent solicitors to give evidence, in the course of which the question of their credibility will arise.  The applicant contends that prospect flows from the following circumstances.

1. The plaintiff was at relevant times employed by the defendant as a butcher.  The defendant is a self-insurer under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). The plaintiff alleges he sustained three injuries to his back in the course of that employment: an injury to his lower back on 27 August 2003; another lower back injury sustained on 17 September 2003; and a further lower back injury on 19 November 2003. The plaintiff retained the respondent as his solicitors in respect of those matters.

1. Under the Workers’ Compensation Rehabilitation Act, the respondent requested the defendant to have the plaintiff assessed for permanent impairment.  On 17 March 2005, the defendant issued three separate notices of assessment, as follows:  in respect of the injury on 27 August 2003, described as a “soft tissue injury lower back”, assessing a 0.67 percent impairment, and offering lump sum compensation of $1,170; in respect of the injury of 17 September 2003, described as “soft tissue injury to lower back”, assessing a 0.67 percent impairment and offering $1,170; and in respect of…