Lashansky v Legal Practice Board

[2010] WASCA 18

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Freezing orders
3. › Undertaking as to damages
4. › Whether undertaking as to damages can be imposed retrospectively after freezing order discharged by consent
5. › Legal Practitioners Act 1893 (WA), ss 58B, 58D
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeals
3. › Dismissal for want of prosecution
4. › Non-compliance with appellate rules
5. › Whether grounds of appeal have reasonable prospect of success
6. › Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), rr 32, 43(2)(g)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeals
3. › New arguments on appeal
4. › Whether issue not raised at first instance may be agitated on appeal
5. › Estoppel argument raised for first time on appeal

Quick Take

A retrospective undertaking as to damages cannot be imposed in respect of a freezing order that has been discharged by consent, as there is nothing to which the undertaking could attach. The appointment of a supervising solicitor under s 58D of the Legal Practitioners Act 1893 (WA) is an act of the Board, not an order of the court, even though the freezing order under s 58B is a precondition for the appointment.