Category Archives: General commercial

WA court bins stat demands, orders indemnity costs and calls the cops

Posted on by
Reply

Some obscure judgments deserve a wider audience.

Master Sanderson of the Western Australia Supreme Court delivered one such gem in April in Rohanna Pty Ltd v Nu-Steel Homes Adelaide Pty Ltd [2013] WASC 109.

Some scene-setting first.

In Christmas week 2012 the plaintiff received two statutory demands from the defendant. The parties had never had any prior contact with each other and yet the demands totalled almost $220,000. Both stat demands were ultimately set aside by Master Sanderson. In the interim the defendant was represented in correspondence by a South Australian solicitor who did not file a formal appearance (Mr Nicholls) and in Court by a non-lawyer (Mr Pearse). Mr Nicholls had offered to settle the matter on the basis that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of $25,000. He also remarked upon the need to advertise any winding up application which might follow if the plaintiff didn’t stump up that loot.

Master Sanderson was scathing. Here are some highlights from a stinging judgment.

11.   In further support of its application the plaintiff filed a second affidavit …. The purpose of this affidavit was to demonstrate the solvency of the plaintiff. A mere glance at this affidavit would be enough to convince even the economically illiterate the plaintiff was solvent. Indeed it shows the plaintiff as a massively successful commercial enterprise. But that was not enough for Mr McNamara.

 

       ….

 

17.   All of these matters can then be aggregated. First, the defendant served the statutory demands without any prior consultation with the plaintiff. If it had a genuine belief there was a debt owed it would have been reasonable to write to the plaintiff, make a claim and explain the basis of that claim. That was not done. Instead the demands were sent by post and arrived on the Thursday before Christmas. If ever there was a time when it was difficult to deal expeditiously with a demand which required action within 21 days, that was it.

 

 ….

 

20.   Fourthly, faced with clear evidence of the solvency of the plaintiff the defendant determined to press on. No reasonable party properly advised would have done so.

 

21.   Fifthly, the correspondence suggests an attempt to embarrass the plaintiff by advertising the fact of a winding up application. There was no need to refer to the advertising of a winding up application in the way Mr McNamara did. The letter strongly suggests the defendant was looking to force the plaintiff into a compromise to serve its own purposes.

 

22.  Sixthly, the defendant actually issued a winding up application. This was done prior to the application to set aside the demands being heard. It must have been clear there was a live issue as to whether the application to restrain the defendant would succeed. … Once again it looks as though the defendant was attempting to pressure the plaintiff.

 

23.   Seventhly, no appearance to the application to set aside the demands was ever lodged. Mr McNamara in his correspondence said he had been retained by the defendant. As late as 28 February 2013 he wrote to the plaintiff’s solicitors on behalf of the defendant. At no time did Mr McNamara indicate his instructions had been terminated and at no time did he give any indication he would not appear at the hearing of the matter on 7 March 2013. Perhaps the defendant was concerned if it did enter an appearance a costs order might be made against it. Or perhaps there was some other reason no appearance was entered. But it does suggest the defendant never took seriously the prospect it could successfully resist the plaintiff’s application.

 

24.   Finally, there is the offer to settle on payment of $25,000 for costs. It may be that Mr McNamara is one of South Australia’s leading corporate lawyers. If that is so, this case does not represent his finest hour. But even assuming high competence on the part of Mr McNamara there is no possible way the defendant’s costs could have amounted to $25,000. No appearance was filed, no affidavits in opposition to the application were lodged, it would appear submissions to be made on behalf of the defendant were drawn by Mr Pearse and the totality of Mr McNamara’s involvement was three or four letters. Really this demand for ‘costs’ is no such thing. It was tantamount to extortion.

 

25.   … This is a case where indemnity costs should be awarded and the only question is who should pay those costs. Mr Pearse will have 14 days from the publication of these reasons to make submissions as to why he should not pay the costs personally.

 

26.   I intend to refer these reasons to the Western Australian Police Service for such action as they deem necessary in relation to Mr Pearse. I will also refer a copy of these reasons to the authorities in South Australia who regulate the legal profession to take such action as they deem appropriate in relation to Mr McNamara.

 

Lessons from this case? Many.

But the very first that occurs to me is that the Wild West’s legal system might have been unfairly maligned by the late Robert Hughes (as recorded in my post here on his passing).

Clayton Utz and the lingering smell of smoke

Posted on by
Reply

Are you a commercial litigator with an interest in client confidentiality and conflicts of interest? Or in schadenfreude?

Then you will probably appreciate Justice Elizabeth Hollingworth’s decision last month in Dale v Clayton Utz (No 2) [2013] VSC 54

A quick refresher before the summary.

Allan Myers QC and Clayton Utz both have singular reputations among Australian lawyers.

Myers is a top shelf commercial silk and philanthropist. His fame, prestige and profile are surely matched by few other practising lawyers in the nation. Apart from that, in his spare time he has dabbled in investments sufficiently to acquire, among other things, a Polish brewery, vast tracts of outback Australia and an entry in BRW’s Richest 200 list.

Clayton Utz’s reputation is more enigmatic. It is a mega firm employing hundreds of no-doubt talented and principled lawyers. But in the public mind it is arguably still best known for its murky role defending Big Tobacco against a claim by a dying ex-smoker, Mrs Rolah McCabe in 2002.

Mrs McCabe won at first instance (see decision here) after the cigarette company’s defence was struck out. The trial judge concluded, among other things, that through its “document retention policy”, the process of discovery in the case had been subverted by the defendant and its solicitors (Clayton Utz) with the deliberate intention of denying a fair trial to the plaintiff.

That decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal here but Clayton’s Utz’s judicial vindication was undermined by the PR shellacking The Age (and other media) gave Clutz and its client in stories like this and this.

How did the The Age get its material?

We now know that some of The Age’s information was leaked to it in 2006 by one time Clayton Utz litigation partner (and also 2004 Law Institute of Victoria president) Chris Dale.

For reasons which the Supreme Court might yet find were or were not related to the McCabe case, Clayton Utz had expelled Dale from its partnership a year earlier in October 2005.

Almost six years later, in September 2011, Dale sued Clayton Utz for breach of the partnership agreement.

Which brings us back to the Victorian Supreme Court’s recent decision.

Clutz filed its defence against Dale in January 2012. That defence was signed by Allan Myers QC.

Dale promptly objected to Myers’ involvement. He said that Myers had advised him in relation to his dealings with the Clutz partnership during 2004 and 2005 and accordingly Myers should not act against him now.

Clutz held its ground so Dale sought an injunction to prevent Myers acting further in the case.

Last month Dale won that argument and Myers exited the proceeding. (The wider dispute between Dale and the partnership remains to be determined.)

Justice Hollingworth’s 40 page judgment is a good read. There is something in it for you whether you are in the mood for a John Grisham-style legal who-dunnit or some pointers on how not to draw affidavits on this type of issue, lawyers’ obligations to parties they have formerly (and possibly informally as well) advised, concepts of ‘contractual’ and ‘consensual’ retainers and much else besides.

But the most confronting topic for mine is the treatment of obligations towards former clients (including people who might never have been ‘clients’ in a formal sense).

In short, Dale swore on affidavit and in cross-examination that as his relationship with the Clutz partnership frayed in 2004 and 2005 he sought and obtained Myers’ oral advice.

Myers denied this on affidavit and was not cross-examined.

Dale’s version (at least as to a single conference of about one hour’s duration in 2004) was preferred by Hollingworth J thus –

33     In so far as Mr Myers states … that he “was not retained” by Mr Dale, I read that as no more than a statement of his personal belief that he was not retained. Mr Myers cannot give evidence as to whether he was in fact retained. Whether or not there was a retainer is a legal matter for the court to determine, from the objective facts, and not from the subjective beliefs of the lawyer or the party alleging to have retained the lawyer.

….

59     In so far as Mr Myers states … that he was not asked to and did not provide legal advice to Mr Dale, given that he has no memory of this conversation at all, I read that as no more than a statement of his personal belief … that he was not retained to provide legal advice.

 ….

135   I accept that Mr Myers did not believe he was being professionally retained. But Mr Myers did not say to Mr Dale that he was seeing him other than in his capacity as senior counsel, even though the discussion lasted for about an hour and went into some detail about Mr Dale’s current predicament. Someone in Mr Myers’ position could easily have taken steps to make it clear that he was not acting in a professional capacity.

….

Conclusion

176   I propose to grant an injunction to restrain Clayton Utz from continuing to engage Mr Myers in this proceeding. Such an injunction would be justified by any of the following findings:

(a)     That a professional relationship existed between Mr Dale and Mr Myers in relation to the August 2004 meeting;

(b)     Further and alternatively, that Mr Dale communicated confidential information to Mr Dale [sic.— Myers?] in the August 2004 meeting, and there is a real and sensible possibility of a revival of recollection, about matters which are of critical importance in this proceeding;

(c)      Further and alternatively, because a fair-minded, reasonably informed member of the public would conclude that the proper administration of justice required that to occur.

The bottom line for Clayton Utz? The firm needs a new silk in for its continuing stoush with Dale.

The bottom line for the rest of us? An hour’s discussion about which you have absolutely no memory or record can be enough nine years later to have you ejected from acting in litigation against the other party to that forgotten discussion.

For the record:

  • Hollingworth J stated (at para 121) “By accepting Mr Dale’s account, I am not in any way suggesting that Mr Myers is not a truthful witness”.
  • In late 2001 or early 2002 I acted for Mrs Rolah McCabe for approximately 48 hours in her case against Clayton Utz’s then-client British and American Tobacco Australia Services Pty Ltd.

Victorian Supreme Court costs – the party/party is over

Posted on by
2

No April Fool’s Day jokes please.

Effective 1 April 2013 the Victorian Supreme Court has a new costs regime.

The highlights:

  • The ‘party and party basis’ (by which most Supreme Court cost bills have historically been taxed) is axed.
  • Henceforth, costs orders will generally be taxed on the more generous ‘solicitor and client basis’ (that is “all costs reasonably incurred and of reasonable amount”) although that yardstick is to be renamed the ‘standard basis.’
  • Costs on an indemnity basis remain available.
  • Solicitors’ time on the standard basis will be claimable in 6 minute units at the rate of $36 + GST per unit (ie $360 + GST per hour).
  • Unless otherwise ordered, the maximum daily allowance for counsel is $5000 + GST per day for juniors and $7500 + GST per day for silks.
  • Photocopying (currently allowable at a whopping $2.30 per page) becomes discretionary but is likely to be allowed in the Costs Court at 22 cents per printed side of page.

For a more detailed explanation of the new costs regime see:

What do the changes mean?

It is probably good news for successful litigants. Any standard costs order in their favour should now translate into more coin in their pocket than was formerly likely under the more austere party and party basis.

It is correspondingly bad news for unsuccessful litigants (by which I include others such as winners who fail to beat their opponents’ Calderbank offers or Offers of Compromise).

And it’s likely business as usual for those practitioners of the dark arts of costs consulting.

How Edelsten’s costs application against solis backfired

Posted on by
Reply

Last October I posted about Dr Edelsten’s adventures in the Supreme Court of Victoria against a lady friend in (Mainly) keeping a sugar daddy’s confidences.

A quick reminder. In an entertaining but unflattering judgment Dr Edelsten won an order for $US5000 plus certain limited suppression orders against a Ms da Silva.

Among other things, Beach J found that “most of the evidence given by the defendant was demonstrably false and could not be believed. However, Dr Edelsten was no more an impressive witness than Ms da Silva.”

Now the aftermath (which escaped me among the distractions of the summer holidays).

The week before Christmas Dr Edelsten went back to court and sought his costs of the litigation against the defendant’s solicitors – on an indemnity basis.

Among other things, he relied upon the Civil Procedure Act.

He argued that swathes of the defendant’s case had no proper basis, her solicitors must have known this and therefore they should not have persisted with key aspects of the defendants’ case.

Beach J was not swayed.

“I am satisfied that at all times … the defendant’s solicitors were acting on the instructions of the defendant. Indeed, when the defence was eventually abandoned, it was abandoned in the face of the defendant’s evidence to the contrary.

… Having regard to the instructions the defendant’s solicitors then possessed, I see nothing improper, or in breach of any rule of conduct, or in breach of any overarching obligation or other provision of the Civil Procedure Act, in the drawing, settling and filing of the defendant’s defence. …

It is always possible to say that an issue, upon which it becomes clear that a party will ultimately be unsuccessful, could have been abandoned earlier if greater diligence had been exercised. However, the mere failure to abandon a point at the earliest possible time does not mandate a conclusion that an overarching obligation of the Civil Procedure Act has been breached.

…. In the end, I have come to the conclusion that while a counsel of perfection would have suggested that the concession made on the afternoon of the third day of the trial could (and possibly should) have been made 24 hours earlier, the failure to take this step at that time did not involve the contravention of any of the overarching obligations in the Civil Procedure Act.

And the ordeal was not yet over.  Beach J concluded with an order that Dr Edelsten pay the solicitors’ costs of his failed application on a solicitor /client basis (apparently because the judge considered the application had been sufficiently hopeless to warrant costs on more than the usual party/party basis).

The costs decision is here.

 

Tripping up on the slip rule

Posted on by
1

“Since the abolition of capital punishment there is now no mistake by a lawyer in Australia that cannot be effectively reversed.”

Or so I was told long ago after a bad day in the office as an articled clerk.

My supervising partner had in mind the slip rule.

The slip rule is the rule that allows courts to correct minor glitches in their own judgments and orders without the trouble and expense of an appellate court’s intervention.

The slip rule is within courts’ inherent jurisdiction but it is also succinctly expressed in most courts’ own rules — see for example Federal Court rule 39.05 and, in Victoria, Supreme Court rule 36.07; Magistrates’ Court rule 36.08 and VCAT Act s 119.

But the slip rule has its limits.

I was reminded of this over the Christmas break by a Retail Tenancies List decision – Versus (Aus) Pty Ltd v ANH Nominees Pty Ltd [2012] VCAT 1908.

In late 2011 the tenant-applicant won an order totalling almost $245,000 against its landlord – see Versus (Aus) Pty Ltd v ANH Nominees Pty Ltd [2011] VCAT 2273. In that case, after a 10-day hearing and a 62-page judgment, VCAT Vice-President Judge Lacava found that the landlord had failed to take reasonable steps to stop or prevent disruption to the tenant’s trading caused by, inter alia, a neighbour’s renovations.

The landlord duly paid up.

Almost a year later the tenant decided to go back to the well. It applied to VCAT under the slip rule for a further order which would have upped the original award by almost $96,000.

The application had three prongs.

Two were swiftly dealt with. Judge Lacava found both to require a total recalculation of damages in circumstances where the errors complained of and their consequences were “not readily identifiable.”

The third limb of the application was starker.

The landlord conceded that a typographical error (yes – a humble typo) in the original reasons had effectively cost the tenant $16,235. But it would not concede the slip rule application.

Quite right too ruled Judge Lacava.

He cited L Shaddock & Associates v City of Parramatta [1983] 151 CLR 590 to the effect that courts have a discretion when dealing with slip rule applications.

In my view, if there was an error capable of being corrected under s. 119 [of the VCAT Act dealing with slip rule applications], it ought to have been identified by the applicant and its accountants by the end of February 2012 at the latest and an application then made. That was not done. In my judgment, the delay in bringing this application for correction is unexplained and is too long. It is important that litigation be brought to an end. In this case, the respondent having promptly paid the amount of damages, it would be both inexpedient and inequitable for me to make the orders sought by the applicant in its further application dated 20 September 2012.

For these reasons, the applicant’s further application is dismissed.

The lessons?

Three occur to me:

  • Try to get it right the first time;
  • Don’t hang about when you (or the judge’s typist) muck it up; and
  • Don’t believe everything supervising partners tell their underlings.

Charge and countercharge of overcharging in Sydney

Posted on by
Reply

Is the expression “excessive legal costs” tautological?

Cynics might say so but not our regulators.

Section 4.4.4(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Vic) makes the “charging of excessive legal costs in connection with the practice of law” (surely a further tautology) conduct capable of constituting either ‘unsatisfactory professional conduct’ or ‘professional misconduct’.

New South Wales’ equivalent legislation saw former high-flying personal injuries soli Russell Keddie struck off last month for just such professional misconduct.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald account here Keddie’s bill of $819,000 to his paraplegic client was $215,00 too high.

Keddie is unlikely to miss his ticket – he retired before he was rubbed out.

Perhaps with a view to the many similar claims against him and his former firm, he also declared himself bankrupt last month.

Keddie’s sagging public reputation is unlikely to be assisted by reports (like further SMH yarns here and here) that before his bankruptcy he transferred his half share in two properties worth a combined $6 million to his wife for – you guessed it – a single dollar each.

The SMH has given the Keddies story a lot of air since 2008 but in Victoria only readers of the Oz are likely to have heard of it.

Keddie’s eponymous firm was once NSW’s leading personal injury plaintiffs’firm. Slater & Gordon took it over for a reported $32 million in 2010. By then Keddies had been been already in strife with NSW’s Legal Services Commissioner for at least 4 years.

Radio National revisited the Keddies saga in Background Briefing last Sunday, 22 July 2012 – audio here and transcript here.

Some highlights from the ABC’s retelling:

  • Aggrieved Keddies clients have already racked up approximately $4 million in judgments against the firm’s three former partners;
  • The ABC speculates that the total overcharging judgments might eventually top $11 million;
  • Enforcement of those judgments is likely to be problematic. Of the three ex-Keddies partners sued, one is already bankrupt and the other two have reportedly had their assets frozen;
  • The overcharging claims against Keddies have been spear-headed by solicitor Stephen Firth with the apparent assistance of some ex-Keddies Deep Throat(s);
  • Coincidentally, Stephen Firth is himself defending several overcharging claims. The plaintiffs’ solicitor in those cases? None other than ex-Keddies partner (and defendant to many Firth-issued overcharging writs) Tony Barakat.

Firth has been forthright in his pursuit of Keddies – see his website here where he boasts of 11 wins totalling $1.5 million in Keddies cases for the month of April alone.

And Barakat is not bashful either. See his comments to The Australian here about the claims against Firth.

Only in Sin City?

 

 

Preparing for a mediation—not a miracle

Posted on by
1

Mediation approaching? Care for a back-to-basics checklist beforehand? Then look at Mark McKillop’s recent blog “Ten Tips about Mediation” (link below).

But first let me top up Mark’s top ten with two extras – the twin concepts of ‘BATNO’ and ‘WATNO’.

In approximately 36 A.D. a notorious persecutor of Christians was travelling from Jerusalem to Damascus. Out of the blue (literally) he was knocked to the ground, blinded by a brilliant light and asked by a booming voice “Why do you persecute me so?” The traveller repented, recovered his sight and went on to a brief but spectacular career as St Paul, arguably the most famous convert, evangelist and martyr Christianity has ever produced.

How is this relevant to preparing for a mediation?

It absolutely isn’t. Damascus Road conversions never happen in mediations.

And yet it seems a rare mediation indeed that does not involve at least one party apparently banking on a complete St Paul-style about-face from the other side during the mediation.

You are only a lawyer. If you cannot supply lightning during the mediation don’t permit your clients to expect Pauline conversions either.

Instead, get your clients to focus their mediation preparation on the real world alternatives to mediation.

Let’s say you are for the defendants. You have told your clients that you are reasonably confident that the plaintiff’s claim is untenable and will fail entirely at trial. (So far, your punters love what they are hearing and see no reason at all to settle at mediation.)

Now the bad news. The trial is unlikely to start for another six months. It might then run, say, two weeks before the judge reserves the decision for, say, a further three months. The decision vindicating your people is already nine months and $50,000 – $100,000 away. That decision might then be appealed delaying practical finalisation of the argument for another year or so. Finally, when all the appeal rights have been exhausted your clients might discover that the costs orders they have amassed along the way are worthless against a penniless plaintiff.

And that all assumes that that your camp wins every point (which, of course, you can’t promise).

Surely your clients are looking more interested in mediation now?

As this example illustrates, even a litigant holding a strong hand should always give serious thought to settling.

And any idea of settling which is premised on the other side cheerfully surrendering at mediation after being blinded by the brilliance of your case is not even halfway serious.

Every client going into a mediation needs to have a realistic understanding of both the best and worst case scenarios if the case does not settle.

Because the mediation industry loves acronyms, these upside/downside concepts are sometimes referred to as the ‘BATNO’ (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Outcome) and the ‘WATNO’ (Worst Alternative To a Negotiated Outcome).

Settlement at mediation on the best terms apparently available will sometimes be a poor choice compared to a litigated outcome.

But settlement (or non-settlement) at mediation without prior regard to both your team’s BATNO and WATNO will always be foolhardy.

Now see Mark McKillop’s recent “Ten Tips about Mediation” here.

Slide into PowerPoint – a novice’s guide

Posted on by
Reply

Are barristers the last professional presenters in the western world to adopt PowerPoint?

I made my PowerPoint début last week at a PPS Act seminar before an audience of 130 solicitors.

The feedback forms  are now in and it seems (on the statistically dubious basis of all 27 completed questionnaires) that it was a resounding success.

PowerPoint is scarcely rocket science but we’ve all seen it stuffed up too often.

So here are three suggestions that helped me:

• Get some Grade 3, 4, 5 or 6 kids to teach you the basics (really!);

• Get their grandmother to fill you in on the rest (chief of which is suggestion #3);

• Watch this video in which comedian Don McMillan does a 9 minute PowerPoint presentation on how not to do a PowerPoint presentation.

It’s funny. But it’s also excellent professional education for any lawyer ever likely to be handed the remote control to a PowerPoint projector.

Safeguard your Mareva injunction with a PPSA registration

Posted on by
Reply

I have just put the finishing touches to a seminar paper I am delivering this week on the Personal Property Securities Act 2009.

My paper is not as unwieldy and dry as the PPS Act itself (is anything?) but I wouldn’t call it sexy either. I will post it on its own discrete (ie separately tabbed) page in this blog after the seminar.

For an extremely short synopsis of the PPS Act generally see my post of 10 February 2012 (which you can access by simply following the date prompts below the mugshot in the right-hand margin of this page.)

But let me take you straight to what might be the highlight for general commercial litigators with Mareva-type injunctions in their armoury (and they should be in every armoury).

Once Mareva orders (aka ‘asset preservation orders’ and ‘freezing orders’) and some analogous orders are obtained from any Australian court or tribunal it seems they can be ‘perfected’ by registration on the PPS Register.

Such registration will effectively advertise the existence of your client’s Mareva injunction to the world at large. That ‘perfection’, among other things, should constructively warn off third parties who might otherwise purchase or lend against the property in breach of a court order restraining the use and/or disposal of that property.

This new tool lies buried in reg 5.3(c) of the PPS Regulations. I am not aware of it having been used since the PPSA regime started on 30 January 2012.

Is this history waiting to be made or has it been made already?

Anyone?

Is your enemy’s enemy your friend? Proportionate liability cases and the rule in Jones v Dunkel

Posted on by
2

The rule in Jones v Dunkel permits a court to draw an inference at trial from a party’s unexplained failure to call a witness logically within that party’s camp. The permissible inference is that the absent witness’s evidence, if led, would not have assisted that witness’s camp.

The rule is not new.  It actually predates the case from which it takes its name – Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298.

Particularly since the commencement in 2004 of Part IVAA of the Wrongs Act (Vic) and its federal equivalents, apportionable liability cases have become commonplace. This has complicated the application of the Jones v Dunkel rule.

Co-defendants in commerical litigation now typically pitch their case at two levels:

  • firstly, they will argue in unison that the plaintiff’s case should fail;
  • secondly, as a fallback, they will argue against each other that, if the plaintiff succeeds, the other co-defendant(s) should wear all, or most, of the resulting liability.

These issues arose (on the pleadings at least) in Goddard Elliott v Fritsch [2012] VSC 87 (see my post below of 29 March 2012 for a brief overview of the case’s facts and issues).

There a disgruntled client sued his solicitors, plus the silk and senior junior retained on his behalf.

He alleged, inter alia, negligence against each of them. Both barristers settled but the solicitors fought the case to verdict. The barristers remained as nominal parties in the trial for the purposes of the apportionment issues.

In defending the negligence claim the solicitors did not call evidence from the silk in support of their case. But neither did the client call evidence from that silk in support of his case.

The client then asked the court to draw an adverse inference against the solicitors in accordance with the rule in Jones v Dunkel.

‘But the silk is an independent party and not within our camp’, replied the solicitors.

Bell J disagreed. Here are some extracts taken from between para 32 and 49 of the 1136 paragraph judgment:

“In the negligence and other claims which have been made, and in the factual basis of what has been alleged, the nature of that case puts all of the defendants by counterclaim in the one camp….

“… It was within the power of [the solicitors] to call [the silk] as a witness in relation to important issues of fact in the case, particularly [the client’s] mental capacity and what occurred when the proceeding in the Family Court was settled…

“As [the silk) was in [the solicitors’ firm’s] camp, it was reasonably to be expected that it would call him to give evidence on its behalf. For reasons which were not explained, it failed to do so.

“The unexplained failure of [the solicitors] to call [the silk] gives rise to an inference that his evidence would not have assisted [the solicitors’] case.  That inference may be taken into account against [the solicitors] in evaluating the whole of the evidence of the case, including the evidence of [the client]. By reason of [the solicitors’] failure to call [the silk] I might more readily resolve any doubts I have about the reliability of [the client’s] evidence.

Conclusion

This ruling illustrates a conundrum likely to arise in many (perhaps even most?) multi-party cases where an apportionment of liability as between defendants (and/or joined parties) is sought.

For each co-defendant, the plaintiff will typically be the primary adversary but not the only adversary. Typically, each of the co-defendants will also be trying to shunt maximum liability on to each other’s plates. In that sense, every other ‘camp’ in the litigation will be an enemy camp.

But, for the purposes of the rule in Jones v Dunkell, your opposition’s opposition might be considered (by the Court at least) to be your friend.  The co-defendant trying to minimise his liability at your expense might very well be considered to have been within your ‘camp’ in the event of your unexplained failure to call evidence from that person.

But dare you call a hostile co-defendant to give evidence on your behalf?

Therein lies a post for another day…