Price v ACN 627 087 030 Pty Ltd trading as Yates Beaggi Lawyers [2020] NSWSC 584

Price v ACN 627 087 030 Pty Ltd trading as Yates Beaggi Lawyers [2020] NSWSC 584

Given the acceptance that there is a serious question to be tried as to the validity and enforceability of the security provisions, the absence of evidence that the plaintiffs were provided an explanation of the security or advised to seek independent legal advice, and the balance of convenience favouring interim preservation of the properties, interlocutory injunctive relief was granted restraining the defendants from taking possession of or otherwise dealing with the subject properties and from acting on the relevant security provisions and deed of appointment, pending final determination.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Andrew John Price; Second Plaintiff: Elisabeth Christine Theodore; First Defendant: ACN 627 087 030 Pty Ltd trading as Yates Beaggi Lawyers; Second Defendant: Daniel Frisken
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Security for Legal Costs, Fiduciary Duty, Costs Agreements, Receivership
Equity Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Security for Legal Costs Fiduciary Duty Costs Agreements Receivership

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew John Price

First Plaintiff

Elisabeth Christine Theodore

Second Plaintiff

ACN 627 087 030 Pty Ltd trading as Yates Beaggi Lawyers

First Defendant

Daniel Frisken

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the security provisions in the costs agreements between the plaintiffs and the first defendant are valid and enforceable
  2. 2 Whether interlocutory injunctive relief should be granted to restrain the defendants from dealing with the plaintiffs' property under security provisions and a deed of appointment

Ratio Decidendi

Given the acceptance that there is a serious question to be tried as to the validity and enforceability of the security provisions, the absence of evidence that the plaintiffs were provided an explanation of the security or advised to seek independent legal advice, and the balance of convenience favouring interim preservation of the properties, interlocutory injunctive relief was granted restraining the defendants from taking possession of or otherwise dealing with the subject properties and from acting on the relevant security provisions and deed of appointment, pending final determination.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted

Orders

  • Each of the defendants, by themselves, their servants and agents, are restrained until further order from taking possession of, encumbering, charging, alienating or otherwise dealing with the Alexandria Property and the Paddington Property; from taking further steps in reliance on the Deed of Appointment dated on or...
  • Costs reserved.