Amirbeaggi v NSW Legal Services Commissioner

Background

1. On Friday 3 July 2020, Mr Amirbeaggi received a telephone call from Mr Eugene Evgenikos. Mr Evgenikos wished to engage Mr Amirbeaggi's firm to act for him, on an urgent basis, in respect of the dissolution of a business in which Mr Evgenikos was a partner. At 10:41am that morning, Mr Amirbeaggi received an email from Mr Evgenikos with a bullet-point summary of the matter and enclosing relevant documentation (including a Deed of Dissolution, Amended Deed of Dissolution, Shareholders' Agreement and Contract) for consideration.

Retainer

1. Mr Amirbeaggi says that he worked over the weekend of 4 and 5 July 2020 reviewing the documentation provided. On Sunday 5 July at 10:53pm, Mr Evgenikos sent Mr Amirbeaggi an email, asking "how did you go with this?". On Monday morning 6 July 2020 at 12:17am, Mr Amirbeaggi responded that he had reviewed what had been sent, and identified a number of questions for discussion. He asked Mr Evgenikos to indicate what time suited him for a discussion, stating that he was available at 7:30am, 11:30am or 4:00pm, and that he would send a letter of engagement in the morning.
2. Mr Evgenikos replied at 4:57am, answering the questions which had been asked, and asking whether 8:00am would work for a conference. Mr Amirbeaggi responded at 7:53am, that 8:00am was "too tight" but that he would call at about 10:00am.
3. Meanwhile, at 7:48am, Ms Maniscalco of Mr Amirbeaggi's firm sent Mr Evgenikos a letter of engagement. The letter stated the hourly rates that would be charged by members and employees of the firm, and identified the "scope of work" as follows: "(a) Review instructing materials and advise; (b) Represent interests; (c) Negotiate dissolution; (d) Appear in court; (e) Advice generally and services on a general retainer basis."
4. It estimated the total fees for undertaking the work, relevantly as follows: "(a) Early resolution: up to $10,000.00 plus GST; (b) Litigated: TBA."
5. It requested a payment of $5,000 into trust on account of costs.
6. As to "ending the engagement", the letter relevantly provided: "You may end the engagement at any time by telling us in writing to stop providing services to you. If you do this, then you are still obliged to pay our professional costs and expenses, and disbursements, up to the time you tell us to stop. We may stop providing services to you and terminate the engagement for just cause if: ● You fail to pay our bills; … ● In our sole discretion we consider it is no longer appropriate to act for you. In the event the above circumstance(s) arise we will give you fourteen days' notice being reasonable notice of our intention to terminate our agreement, and the grounds on which the notice is based."
7. At 10:00am, Mr Amirbeaggi and Mr Evgenikos had a telephone conversation, apparently for about 45 minutes. Mr Evgenikos provided further background information and there was discussion about what further documentation Mr Amirbeaggi would need. According to Mr Amirbeaggi, he said he would have a draft letter to Mr Evgenikos on either Tuesday or Wednesday. Subsequently, Mr Evgenikos provided a further 160 pages of documentation.
8. On Tuesday 7 July 2020, Mr Amirbeaggi's firm received $5,000 into its trust account from Mr Evgenikos. Mr Amirbeaggi says that he spent the day, between other commitments, reviewing the documentation and preparing the draft letter.

Termination

1. On Wednesday 8 July at 9:50am, Mr Amirbeaggi received a text message from Mr Evgenikos stating "can you please hold fire on my file until we speak? Thanks". Mr Amirbeaggi almost immediately replied "yes of course. I'm in a conference for the next two hours but can we speak at say 12 noon?". Mr Evgenikos responded "yes". Mr Amirbeaggi endeavoured to call him, and sent him a text message at 1:47pm, in order to obtain further instructions but without success.
2. At 9:22pm, Mr Amirbeaggi received a text message from Mr Evgenikos "hope you had a nice day. Has there been a letter drafted up by any chance?". Mr Amirbeaggi answered at 9:24pm: "I've reviewed it all and was drafting but put it down because of your text above that says hold fire. Do you want me to continue? Can complete it tomorrow. Let me know. And can speak when you are ready".
3. At 9:25pm, Mr Evgenikos responded: "What % of the letter is done? Was expecting it yesterday"
4. At 9:28pm Mr Amirbeaggi replied: "Im sorry what? I'm busy 20 hours a day Eugene so please don't expect I'll put up with crap. I'll close your file and take it elsewhere. I'm doing you a favour not other way around. I'll let Harry know."
5. Mr Evgenikos responded at 9:30pm: "Hi Farshad. Apologies did not mean to rub you up the wrong way."
6. On Thursday 9 July 2020 at 7:11am, Mr Amirbeaggi's firm issued a memorandum of fees to Mr Evgenikos in the following terms: "Attendance upon you by telephone to discuss the atter / background (4 units); review of instructing records some 119 pages (28 units); further discussion with you as to next steps / desired outcomes (3 units); further review of emails provided and revisit employment agreement and shareholders agreement to extract areas of demand ie restraints and duties and attendances upon you (30 units); Amount $4,550.00 plus GST $455.00. Balance Due $5,005.00."
7. The memorandum was forwarded under cover of an email which stated: "Might we have you kindly confirm by return email, your consent for us to apply the funds we hold in trust on your behalf towards our attached account".
8. At 9:00pm that evening, Mr Evgenikos sent Mr Amirbeaggi an email, as follows: "Good evening I am totally bewildered by your response and your subsequent action to particularly in light of our earlier phone conversations which were amicable and pleasant. During our phone conversations, last Friday and on Monday you asserted to me the following: - ● You don't like taking clients' money unnecessarily ● You will have a draft letter to me by Tuesday afternoon or first thing Wednesday morning for discussion before issue Your response from your text message and your abrupt termination is not consistent with the above. Your letter of engagement provides for a scope of work as per the image below:- … Of the items above you have not completed any of the five components, yet you provide us for half your fee estimate. You have not followed under your engagement letter the 14 day notice period of your decision of 'Ending the Engagement' and you have left me abandoned me and forced me to source and brief another solicitor in my matter costing me further time and expense. Accordingly your invoice is disputed in full and you are NOT authorised to release the funds to you. Also in your letter of engagement you mention the following, 'we pride ourselves on our client services. If at any time we consider the matter is not progressing satisfactorily towards its objectives, including costs objectives, then we will contact you to agree a course of action'. You have clearly have not acted under your own service commitment. Given the above and your unsatisfactory professional conduct, I demand a refund of all monies in the trust account. Please EFT the monies into account …"

Complaint

1. On 14 July 2020, Mr Evgenikos made a complaint to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner ("OLSC"). The OLSC notified Mr Amirbeaggi of the complaint on 24 July 2020 and sought his response for the purposes of a preliminary review. The notification summarised the complaint as follows: "Broadly, Mr Evgenikos alleges that you have overcharged him for the amount of work you did in relation to his commercial law matter. He also alleges that you were rude to him by text message and in emails. As such, Mr Evgenikos has requested a refund of the $5,000 he deposited into your trust account initially in the matter, and he is disputing your lump sum invoice for $5,005 inclusive of GST, dated 9 July 2020. Further details are enclosed in the complaint materials."
2. In requesting a response for the purpose of preliminary assessment, the notification also stated (emphasis in original): "Please also provide any suggestions you may have as to how this dispute could be resolved, including an indication of whether you are willing to negotiate your costs."
3. At 12:36pm the same day, Mr Amirbeaggi responded: "Thank you for your letter. The Complainant is welcome to pursue a cost assessment against my practice. I will not be refunding his fees after undertaking the work he asked of me. I'd rather he commence such proceedings so that the costs of it may be addressed / claimed through that process. I disagree with the complainant's account of the matter (without limitation in terms of representations as to when items of work would be completed), and am happy to respond when required. You will see within the records he has himself provided (which omit records that don't assist him) that on one hand he asks for the work to be stopped, does not take my call later in the relevant day to discuss, and then at 9:22pm sends me indignant messages, which then escalate to blatant offense. It was by his conduct that the engagement was terminated."
4. On 28 August 2020 the OLSC requested Mr Amirbeaggi's response, for which time was extended from 14 August 2020 to 18 September 2020. On 7 September 2020, Mr Amirbeaggi responded that he was happy to provide any further submissions sought, but had assumed that no further response was required after his email of 24 July. On 11 September, the OLSC asked for a "fulsome" response by 25 September. At Mr Amirbeaggi's request, extensions were subsequently granted to 7 October 2020.

OLSC's preliminary view

1. On 31 March 2021, the OLSC informed Mr Evgenikos of the Commissioner's preliminary view (that Mr Amirbeaggi had not complied with Rule 4.1.2 of the Solicitors' Rules, nor with Rule 13.1, and that the fees charged were not fair and reasonable in all the circumstances). Mr Evgenikos responded on 19 April 2021 stating: "I am still at a loss to understand why Mr Amirbeaggi will still receive monies plus just a caution and not a fine and a formal apology, when you identify the violations of his conduct. This is simply a 'slap on the wrist'".
2. On 20 April 2021, the OLSC sent Mr Amirbeaggi an email informing him of the Commissioner's preliminary view, setting out his reasons, and requesting any submissions by 13 April 2021. The letter included the following: "According to the LPUL, this Office may resolve a consumer matter by making a determination under section 290. This Office also has the power to make a binding determination about costs under section 292 where it has been unable to resolve a costs dispute."
3. After being granted an extension, Mr Amirbeaggi responded on 7 June 2021 with detailed submissions.

Determinations

1. On 13 September 2021, the OLSC notified Mr Amirbeaggi of the Commissioner's determinations and reasons for them. The Commissioner expressed himself to be "satisfied that it is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances to resolve this consumer matter by making a determination under section 290 of the LPUL". He concluded that the text message of 8 July 2020 at 9:28pm was not necessary or appropriate and was in breach of Rule 4.1.2 which requires solicitors to be courteous in all dealings in the course of legal practice, as were the emails sent the following evening. However, he concluded that the conduct did not reach the threshold of unsatisfactory professional conduct, and that it was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances to resolve the matter by making a determination under section 290 of the LPUL. That determination was: "I order pursuant to section 290(2)(a) of the LPUL that you are cautioned."
2. The letter confirmed that the caution would not be listed publicly on the register of disciplinary action, and that such determinations are not publicly available.
3. In respect of the costs dispute, the Commissioner made a determination under LPUL s 292, as follows: "That the amount payable as legal costs by Mr Evgenikos to Mr Amirbeaggi in relation to the bill dated 9 July 2020 is $3,000 (GST inclusive)."
4. Again, that determination was accompanied by the reasons for it.

Application for judicial review

1. Mr Amirbeaggi filed his summons for judicial review on 13 October 2021.
2. On 29 July 2022, he also applied to the Commissioner pursuant to LPUL s 313 for internal review of the determinations. That application was acknowledged on 1 August 2022. The acknowledgement explained that the first step was the Commissioner's consideration (at his absolute discretion) whether it was appropriate to conduct an internal review, and the second, which arose only if the Commissioner so decided in his absolute discretion, was the conduct of the review. The OLSC indicated that consideration of an application for an internal review could take up to six months, and that it would seek submissions relevant to the first stage following and subject to the outcome of "the show cause hearing", which appears to be a reference to the present proceedings. The Commissioner did not consent to an adjournment of the present proceedings pending any internal review.

The Caution Decision

1. Mr Amirbeaggi impugns the decision to impose a caution under LPUL s 290 for jurisdictional error and/or error on the face of the record on three grounds, namely: 1. that statutory preconditions to the exercise of the power were not considered nor met; 2. that the Commissioner failed to act according to the intent and purpose of the LPUL and failed to take into account relevant considerations; and 3. that the exercise of discretion was "erroneous and unreasonable".
2. LPUL s 315 (Duty to deal with complaints) provides: "It is the duty of the designated local regulatory authority to deal with all complaints properly made and to deal with them in accordance with this Law and the Uniform Rules."
3. For this State, the Commissioner is the "designated local regulatory authority".
4. Section 285 provides that Part 5.3 (Consumer matters) applies to consumer matters, and that Division 2 applies to all consumer matters subject to Division 3 in relation to costs disputes. The subject complaint was a consumer matter, within s 269, which relevantly provides: "(1) A consumer matter is so much of a complaint about a lawyer or a law practice as relates to the provision of legal services to the complainant by the lawyer or law practice and as the designated local regulatory authority determines should be resolved by the exercise of functions relating to consumer matters."

Statutory precondition not considered or satisfied?

1. The fulcrum of Mr Amirbeaggi's argument in respect of ground (a) was s 286 (Prerequisite to resolution action by local regulatory authority), which provides as follows: "Despite any other provision of this Division, the designated local regulatory authority is not to take action towards resolving a consumer matter unless it is of the opinion that - (a) at least one of the parties has made a reasonable attempt to resolve the matter and the attempt has been unsuccessful; or (b) it would be unreasonable to expect the complainant to be involved in such an attempt."
2. Mr Amirbeaggi submits that neither party made a reasonable attempt to resolve the matter, that it would not have been unreasonable to expect Mr Evgenikos to be involved in an attempt to resolve it, and that the Commissioner did not form the opinion referred to in s 286.
3. It was common ground, and in my opinion correctly so, that the Commissioner's formation of the opinion referred to in s 286 is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the exercise of power under s 290. It is also correct that there is no direct evidence that the Commissioner formed that opinion or adverted to the necessity to do so. However, the Commissioner submits that it does not follow that the requisite opinion was not formed.
4. Where a jurisdictional prerequisite is expressed as a subjective criterion, such as the formation of an opinion by the decision-maker, it is the opinion, rather than the underlying circumstances, that provides the criterion conditioning the exercise of power. [1] In such a case, judicial review is limited to determining whether the relevant opinion was formed genuinely (or at all), upon a proper view of the law, with consideration of and only of relevant factors, and whether formation of the requisite opinion was reasonably open in the circumstances. [2]
5. As to whether the opinion was reasonably open in the circumstances, a question arises as to whether an attempt at resolution before a complaint is made to the Commissioner is eligible for consideration under s 286(a). It seems to me that "the matter" in s 286(a) refers back to the "consumer matter" in the chapeau. The definition of "consumer matter", set out above, refers to "so much of a complaint …". On one view, there can be "a matter", and thus an attempt to resolve it, only after a "complaint" has been made.

Failure to have regard to relevant considerations?

1. Ground (b) turns on LPUL s 287 (Informal resolution of consumer matters), which provides as follows: "The designated local regulatory authority must attempt to resolve a consumer matter by informal means as soon as practicable."
2. Mr Amirbeaggi submits that the Commissioner did not do this, and in particular did not engage the procedures provided by s 288 (Mediation) or 289 (Settlement agreements). This was characterised as a failure to perform his statutory duty.
3. It is far from clear that an attempt at informal resolution under s 287 is a jurisdictional prerequisite to making a determination under s 290. Unlike s 286, it is not expressed to be a "prerequisite". Nor does it contain such words as appear in s 286 as "Despite any other provision of this Division." Similarly, s 290 is not expressed to be subject to s 287. It would be curious if the Commissioner was precluded from taking action under s 290 in circumstances where no attempt to resolve the matter by informal means was made because it was recognised to be futile or inappropriate. The words "as soon as practicable" in s 287 themselves indicate some flexibility in the requirement.
4. In any event, an attempt at informal resolution can be seen in the Commissioner's letter of 24 July 2020 to Mr Amirbeaggi, which included an invitation to provide "any suggestions you may have as to how this dispute could be resolved". Another such attempt may be found in the Commissioner's letter of 28 October 2020, which included amongst the questions to which Mr Amirbeaggi was invited to respond: "2. You appear to have charged Mr Evgenikos half the costs estimate that is, $5,000, before having completed items (b) to (e) of your scope of works. As a result, please indicate whether you are willing to reduce your bill. 3. Please provide any other suggestions you may have as to how this dispute could be resolved."
5. Mr Amirbeaggi's response of 30 November 2020 was that he was not willing to reduce the tax invoice, and that the dispute may be resolved by Mr Evgenikos being more respectful to those he engages, and the file being closed: "I do not wish to be drawn into further correspondence with respect to the matter, and otherwise invite Mr Evgenikos to initiate cost assessment proceedings should he remain discontent."
6. Further, the provision of the Commissioner's preliminary decision to both Mr Evgenikos and to Mr Amirbeaggi provided another opportunity for resolution before proceeding to formal resolution.

Unreasonableness?

1. Ground (c) contends that the imposition of a caution was "erroneous and unreasonable".
2. For Mr Amirbeaggi it was argued that, commencing from the duty imposed on the Commissioner by s 316 "in exercising or considering whether or how to exercise any applicable discretions when dealing with a complaint … to act in a fair manner, having regard to the respective interests of the complainant and the respondent and to the public interest", the Commissioner should, when exercising powers under s 290, act in a manner that is proportionate, and does not involve a substantial disparity between outcomes in respect of comparative conduct by other practitioners. It was submitted that in this case, it was relevant that the comments were not made in a public forum and were not "gratuitously insulting or offensive", [10] that Mr Amirbeaggi firmly believed that he had a reasonable basis for making the comments, and that the comments were made in the course of correspondence with a client regarding the client's own conduct and discourtesy and unreasonableness. A comparison was sought to be made with Lander v Council of the Law Society of the ACT, [11] in which the solicitor was charged with a breach of a rule equivalent to Rule 4.1.2. While a disciplinary tribunal found him guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct, stating that "the language of the respondent's letter of 24 October 2006 contains in several paragraphs discourteous remarks and offensive and provocative language", the Full Court overturned the decision, holding that although solicitors have an obligation to deal with all persons, whether legal practitioners or the public, with honesty and fairness, the issue of courtesy varies depending on the circumstances; [12] that where the conduct of public officials, which is reasonably considered to be rude, unhelpful or any similar characterisation, adversely impacts on a client, it is no breach of the obligation of courtesy to raise the subject with those in authority; [13] and that it is not professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct for a solicitor to raise such matters where the criticisms are true or fair comment as understood in defamation law. [14]
3. It is of course well established that to impugn an administrative decision on the basis that it was manifestly unreasonable is a large task. Essentially, it involves showing that the decision is one to which no person reasonably exercising the relevant function could have come, or is made in a manner so devoid of plausible justification that no reasonable person could have taken that course. [15] Far from being of that view, it seems to me that it was plainly open to the Commissioner to be satisfied that Mr Amirbeaggi's text of 9 July and subsequent correspondence was unnecessarily and inappropriately discourteous. So holding, and imposing a very modest sanction for it, serves the proper purpose of maintaining the reputation of the profession, by "calling out" discourteous behaviour. The submissions for Mr Amirbeaggi proceed largely on the basis that his response, and persistence in it, was a justifiable or at least understandable one in the circumstances. However, it is far from evident that Mr Evgenikos' query which provoked the initial response was (as contended by Mr Amirbeaggi) itself discourteous or unreasonable, as distinct from purely inquisitive. The provocation - if there was any - was slight, and it was followed immediately by an apology from Mr Evgenikos for any offence caused. In such circumstances, practitioners are expected to show moderation and restraint. I do not accept that the pressures of modern practice are such that it is acceptable for practitioners to be other than courteous to their clients. Mr Amirbeaggi's seniority and experience is not a mitigating factor in this respect. Given that the caution is not included in the public register, the submission that it will have a lasting adverse effect on his standing or advancement is not a powerful one. It suffices to conclude that it was open to the Commissioner to determine that imposition of a caution was in all the circumstances fair and reasonable.

The Costs Decision

1. The Commissioner's determination on the costs question was impugned on the ground that it was affected by error on the face of the record and/or jurisdictional error, in that it was said to be unreasonable being premised upon a wrong principle, permitted extraneous or irrelevant matters to inform it, and did not take into account a material consideration, in particular: 1. it was made without reference to the terms of the retainer between Mr Evgenikos and Mr Amirbeaggi and thus failed to take into account a relevant consideration, and 2. it was an arbitrary determination without reference to the time spent by Mr Amirbeaggi in undertaking the work and the nature, scope and complexity of the work.
2. For Mr Amirbeaggi it was submitted that the decision to reduce his costs by $1550 was legally unreasonable because the decision was one that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached, was devoid of "evident and intelligible justification", [16] and provided "no logical connection between the evidence and the inferences or conclusions drawn". [17]
3. LPUL s 292 provides that the Commissioner may make a binding determination about costs where he is unable to resolve a costs dispute and the total amount of legal costs in dispute is less than $10,000. The determination must specify the amount payable and must be less than $10,000. The determination is to be based on the Commissioner's assessment of what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. In considering what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances the Commissioner must have regard to LPUL s 200 (which identifies the factors to be taken into account in a costs assessment).
4. The Commissioner's reasons state that he had had regard to the factors in s 200. Essentially, his reasoning was that: 1. the costs disclosure estimated a cost of up to $10,000 for "early resolution", which would have required performance of three of the tasks identified in the scope of works, namely (a) review instructing materials and advise, (b) represent interests, and (c) negotiate dissolution; 2. Mr Amirbeaggi should be paid for the work undertaken on an urgent basis over the weekend after taking instructions on Friday 3 July up to Monday 6 July 2020, for which he had claimed $2,450 plus GST; 3. Mr Amirbeaggi claimed $2,100 plus GST for "further review of emails provided and revisit employment agreement and shareholders' agreement to extract areas of demand i.e. restraint and duties and attendances upon you". Mr Amirbeaggi had been provided with additional documentary material and was instructed to draft a letter. When he terminated the retainer, he had not completed the draft letter, although he says that he had started drafting it. Mr Evgenikos did not receive the benefit of the work for which Mr Amirbeaggi billed $2,100 plus GST; 4. of the tasks set out in the scope of works relating to early resolution, (a) may have been completed, but there is no evidence that (b) or (c) had been commenced. Yet the bill for $5,005 exceeded half of the estimate of up to $10,000 for early resolution.

Conclusion

1. My conclusions may be summarised as follows: 1. It is not established that the Commissioner did not form the opinion referred to in LPUL s 286; 2. Compliance with the requirement in s 287 to attempt informal resolution is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to making a determination under s 290. In any event, the Commissioner did attempt informal resolution; 3. The options of mediation and settlement agreements provided by s 287 and s 288 are not mandatory considerations in the Peko-Wallsend sense; [18] 4. It was entirely open to the Commissioner to conclude that Mr Amirbeaggi contravened Rule 4.1.2 and that a caution was a fair and reasonable sanction; 5. The costs decision was not made without reference to the terms of the retainer, nor arbitrary, but rational and open to the Commissioner.
2. It follows that no ground for judicial review is established. The summons is dismissed with costs.

Endnotes

1. Bankstown Municipal Council v Fripp (1919) 26 CLR 385 at 403; [1919] HCA 41 (Isaacs and Rich JJ); Minister for Immigration v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611; [1999] HCA 21 at [130]ff (Gummow J); Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act v New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council [2009] NSWCA 151 at [33] (Basten JA; Beazley and Tobias JJA agreeing); Darley Australia Pty Ltd v Walfertan Processors Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 48 at [76] (McColl JA; Macfarlan and Whealy JJA agreeing).
2. Barrick Australia Ltd v Williams (2009) 74 NSWLR 733; [2009] NSWCA 275 at [21] (Basten JA; McColl JA agreeing).
3. R v Alley; Ex parte New South Wales Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees' Union (1981) 153 CLR 376 at 382; [1981] HCA 61 (Gibbs CJ), see also, 393-394 (Mason J), 395-396 (Murphy J), 397 (Aickin J); Queensland v Wyvill (1989) 25 FCR 512 at 520; [1989] FCA 732 at [38] (Pincus J); Eatts v Dawson (1990) 21 FCR 166; [1990] FCA 216 at 171 [16] (Morling and Gummow JJ), at 189 [4] (Beaumont J); Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZMTA (2019) 264 CLR 421; [2019] HCA 3 at [41] (Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ).
4. (2011) 241 CLR 594; [2011] HCA 1 at [66]-[67], [91]-[92].
5. Campbelltown City Council v Vegan (2006) 67 NSWLR 372; [2006] NSWCA 284 at [121]-[122] (Basten JA; Handley and McColl JJA agreeing).
6. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 271-2; [1996] HCA 6 at [30]-[31] (Brennan CJ, Toohey, McHugh and Gummow JJ).
7. Politis v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) [1988] FCA 739 at [14] (Lockhart J) in Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 280 at 287; [1993] FCA 456 at [22] (Neaves, French and Cooper JJ).
8. Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Motor Accidents Authority of NSW [2006] NSWSC 1096; (2006) 47 MVR 46 at [36]-[37] (Sully J).
9. [2021] NSWCA 207 at [32] (Brereton JA; Meagher and Leeming JJA relevantly agreeing).
10. In distinction to Law Society of NSW re Constantine Karageorge, Solicitors' Statutory Committee (15 July 1987).
11. (2009) 168 ACTR 32; [2009] ACTSC 117 ("Lander").
12. Lander at [43] (Higgins CJ, Gray and Refshauge JJ).
13. Lander at [35]-[36] (Higgins CJ, Gray and Refshauge JJ).
14. Lander at [53] (Higgins CJ, Gray and Refshauge JJ).