Johnstone v Victorian Lawyers RPA Ltd [2003] FCA 1052

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Johnstone v Victorian Lawyers RPA Ltd [2003] FCA 1052 RAYMOND MARSHALL JOHNSTONE v VICTORIAN LAWYERS RPA LTD V 883 OF 2003 SUNDBERG J 3 OCTOBER 2003 MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 883 OF 2003

BETWEEN: RAYMOND MARSHALL JOHNSTONE

APPLICANT

AND: VICTORIAN LAWYERS RPA LTD (ACN 075 475 731)

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SUNDBERG J

DATE OF ORDER: 3 OCTOBER 2003

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The Application be dismissed under Order 20 rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the Application, the motion notice of which was filed on 1 October 2003 and the application for interlocutory relief. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 883 OF 2003

BETWEEN: RAYMOND MARSHALL JOHNSTONE

APPLICANT

AND: VICTORIAN LAWYERS RPA LTD (ACN 075 475 731)

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SUNDBERG J

DATE: 3 OCTOBER 2003

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 On 25 August 2003 the applicant wrote to Mr Phillip Borden of the firm Home Wilkinson and Lowry (HWL) about a proceeding in the Supreme Court of Victoria (No 2047/02) between Simon Eden as plaintiff and Alex Copland and Acland Investments Pty Ltd as defendants. It is a long letter and consists largely of complaints about the way in which HWL had conducted the case. Some extracts will disclose the flavour of the letter: "1. When we came into the case on 26th May 2003, the day your firm dropped out only 9 days before the case was then listed for hearing on an 8 day trial in the Supreme Court, we quickly realised: · that your firm had, up until then, conducted the case almost completely incorrectly …."