Forster v Legal Services Board

[2013] VSCA 131

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Legal Practitioners
2. › External intervention into law practice
3. › Appointment of receivers
4. › Trust account deficiencies
5. › Extension of receivership
6. › Whether trial judge erred in extending receivership
7. › Whether recovery proceeding had utility
8. › Legal Profession Act 2004 (Vic), ss 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.5.4(1)(b), 5.6.5
1. Legal Practitioners
2. › External intervention into law practice
3. › Freezing orders over proceeds of sale of practice premises
4. › Whether trial judge erred in refusing to set aside freezing order
5. › Whether payment to judgment creditor would satisfy justification for freezing order
1. Appeal
2. › Leave to appeal
3. › Interlocutory orders
4. › Extension of receivership
5. › Whether orders extending receivership were interlocutory
6. › Whether leave to appeal required
7. › Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), s 17A(4)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Interlocutory or final orders
3. › Distinction between interlocutory and final orders
4. › Orders extending term of receivership made after primary orders
5. › Whether extension orders were interlocutory

Quick Take

Upon the decision to order external intervention into a law practice having been made and the time for appeal having expired, there is no onus on receivers seeking an extension of the receivership; the court need only be satisfied the receivership continues to have utility. A trust account deficiency under s 3.3.21(3) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (Vic) does not require proof of a breach of trust causing loss to a client. Orders extending the term of a receivership are interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal, but the exception in s 17A(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) for injunctions applies to freezing orders.