GOLDSMITH v VILLANUEVA & ANOR [2000] NSWSC 1181

GOLDSMITH v VILLANUEVA & ANOR [2000] NSWSC 1181

There was no contract for fees between the plaintiff and first defendant as the employed solicitor had decided not to charge, and the subsequent compromise agreement was rightly not enforced under the Contracts Review Act 1980 given the circumstances. However, the second defendant was in breach of her contract of employment by agreeing to undertake work for no fee without employer authorisation.

Parties
Plaintiff: Barrie Goldsmith; First Defendant: Christopher Villanueva; Second Defendant: Sarah Louise Gillis
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff; judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant; costs orders as specified; damages against second defendant remitted for assessment.
Legal Topics
Costs Agreements, Contract of Retainer, Pro Bono Work, Assessment of Costs
Contract Law Legal Profession Costs Agreements Contract of Retainer Pro Bono Work Assessment of Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barrie Goldsmith

Plaintiff

Christopher Villanueva

First Defendant

Sarah Louise Gillis

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an employed solicitor had authority to provide pro bono work without employer's consent
  2. 2 Whether an agreement to pay fees was enforceable given the circumstances
  3. 3 Application of Legal Profession Act 1987 s 189 to compromise agreements

Ratio Decidendi

There was no contract for fees between the plaintiff and first defendant as the employed solicitor had decided not to charge, and the subsequent compromise agreement was rightly not enforced under the Contracts Review Act 1980 given the circumstances. However, the second defendant was in breach of her contract of employment by agreeing to undertake work for no fee without employer authorisation.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff; judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant; costs orders as specified; damages against second defendant remitted for assessment.

Orders

  • Judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff on the summons.
  • Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in respect of the summons.