In the matter of SM Project Developments Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2017] NSWSC 1010

In the matter of SM Project Developments Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2017] NSWSC 1010

Leave for Kent Attorneys to cease to act was refused because the application was made too late, potential prejudice to the interests of justice and the hearing was unacceptable, and the solicitors had opportunities to raise the issue earlier without causing last-minute disruption.

Parties
First Plaintiff: SM Project Developments Pty Limited (in liquidation); Second Plaintiff: Anthony Elkerton in his capacity as liquidator of SM Project Developments Pty Limited (in liquidation); First Defendant: Minha Hua; Second Defendant: Salim Mehajer; Applicants: Rodney Kent and Tom Orlizki trading as Kent Attorneys
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Application for Leave to Cease to Act / Interlocutory, Pre Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed. Costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Right to Cease to Act, Late Application to Withdraw, Obligations Under Retainer, Court's Discretion in Granting Leave
Civil Procedure Solicitor's Right to Cease to Act Late Application to Withdraw Obligations Under Retainer Court's Discretion in Granting Leave

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SM Project Developments Pty Limited (in liquidation)

First Plaintiff

Anthony Elkerton in his capacity as liquidator of SM Project Developments Pty Limited (in liquidation)

Second Plaintiff

Minha Hua

First Defendant

Salim Mehajer

Second Defendant

Rodney Kent and Tom Orlizki trading as Kent Attorneys

Applicants

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion Application for Leave to Cease to Act / Interlocutory, Pre Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted for solicitors to cease to act for the Second Defendant under r 7.29 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) or inherent jurisdiction shortly before hearing

Ratio Decidendi

Leave for Kent Attorneys to cease to act was refused because the application was made too late, potential prejudice to the interests of justice and the hearing was unacceptable, and the solicitors had opportunities to raise the issue earlier without causing last-minute disruption.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Costs reserved.

Orders

  • The notice of motion filed by Messrs Kent and Orlizki, trading as Kent Attorneys, be dismissed.
  • Costs be reserved.