The Legal Services Tribunal of New South Wales CITATION : Brian Barrington Roberts [1994] NSWLST 18 PARTIES : Brian Barrington Roberts FILE NUMBER(S) : of 1993 CORAM: Mr G B Molloy (Presiding Member) - Ms S. Hale - Mr G. Warwick-Smith CATCHWORDS: Professional Misconduct - forgery :- Forged Will LEGISLATION CITED: Regulation 8 of the Legal Profession (Trust Accounts and Controlled Money) Regulation, 1988 Legal Profession Act 1987 CASES CITED: Law Society v Foreman (1994 4 LPDR 1) DATES OF HEARING: 29 July 1994 and 29 November 1994 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/22/1994 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Mr C.M. Simpson (instructed by Mr G.J. Still) for the Law Society of New South Wales. No appearance by the Solicitor. JUDGMENT: Plea of guilty by solicitor to charge of uttering a forged Will constitutes an admission by the solicitor that he knew the Will was forged - propounding forged Will in the Supreme Court by filing in that Court a summons for probate and supporting affidavits in respect of a will that the solicitor knew was forged - misappropriation of estate monies - swearing Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities which failed to disclose the liabilities of the solicitor to the Estate - swearing affidavit in the Supreme Court which deposed to legal fees of $15,000.00 when the amount was $26,000.00 - preparing false cheque and false letter of authorisation to bank - professional misconduct - no appearance by solicitor - strike off order made. On or about 20 October 1990 Ludwig Gertsch was murdered. Some time later, his body was discovered in a decomposed state in the Blue Mountains. By his alleged last Will and Testament dated 7 September 1990 the deceased appointed the Solicitor as the executor and trustee of his Will, made certain directions as to the payment of various legacies, two of which were in not inconsiderable sums and a third of which was in $200,000.00 to a relative, Bradley Gertsch, who was then a minor, made certain provisions relating to the creation of a life tenancy in a property at Redfern in favour of the deceased's mother and, after her death, to the said Bradley Gertsch and the balance of his estate was to be held by the solicitor in trust for Vince Esposito. The alleged Will was allegedly witnessed by a "N.B. Whillas" and a "Lea Whillas". On 9 January 1991 the solicitor, as executor, applied for a Grant of Probate of that Will to the Supreme Court by filing the appropriate Summons and necessary supporting documents. The relevant documents for the purposes of this Determination are the Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities, the Summons for Probate itself signed by the solicitor claiming that Probate of the alleged Will be granted to the solicitor, the Affidavit of Attesting Witness allegedly signed by "L.G. Whillas" and, filed subsequently, an Affidavit of the solicitor 12 May 1993 verifying the Accounts of the estate. On the first day of hearing before the Tribunal on 29 July 1994, the solicitor appeared and requested that the matter stand adjourned so that he could prepare his defence to certain charges laid against him by the Crown arising out of the estate of the deceased. The Tribunal acceded to the application, made certain directions as to the filing of Statutory Declarations and adjourned the matter for hearing to 29 November. The evidence shows that the Law Society served certain additional material upon the solicitor in accordance with the Tribunal's directions, including service of an Amended Complaint (the amendments arising out of certain matters that took place before His Honour Judge Gallen in the District Criminal Court) and that the solicitor not only acknowledged receiving the additional material and the Amended Complaint but was also made fully aware, by way of confirmation, of the fact that the Amended Complaint would be heard before this Tribunal on 29 November 1994. When the matter was called at 10-15 a.m. the solicitor did not appear and neither did he appear during the course of the hearing, which lasted until about 12-40 p.m. and the Complaint was heard ex parte. This is probably not surprising considering the various pleas of guilty made by the solicitor before His Honour Judge Gallen. The primary submissions made by the Law Society can be summarised as follows: 1. The solicitor uttered a Will (of the deceased Ludwig Gertsch) and propounded that Will in the Supreme Court knowing that the document was forged. 2. The solicitor misappropriated moneys which he held in trust for the estate of the deceased. There were other complaints made against the solicitor also but it is convenient to deal firstly with these two primary complaints. The forged will On Monday 10 October 1994 the matter of Regina v Brian Roberts, No. 93/11/1139 was listed in the District Court in its Criminal Jurisdiction before His Honour Judge Gallen. The Transcript, properly identified in evidence before us, shows that, in answer to a question from the Bench counsel for the accused solicitor answered: "It's listed to enter a plea. The matter was originally listed for trial, your Honour, and there's a change of plea". The Crown Prosecutor presented to the Court four counts in the indictment. The relevant count for the purposes of this aspect of the solicitor's affairs was Charge (4) in the following words: "Further that he (the solicitor) between 6 September 1990 and 10 January 1991 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales did utter a certain forged Will and Testament purporting to be the last Will and Testament of Ludwich Goerch (sic) (but in the type-written Count spelled Ludwig Gertsch) to him, well knowing that at the time he so uttered the Will and Testament that the same was forged". To that Charge the solicitor himself answered: "Guilty". It goes without saying that the solicitor is a solicitor. In addition, he was represented by counsel. The matter was listed before His Honour for the quite specific purpose of entering a plea and the solicitor spoke the word "Guilty" himself. We must conclude, therefore, that he knew what he was doing when he entered the plea. The word "utter" is defined in the NSW Crimes Act, Section 250, as referring to "any forged instrument, document, signature .... or any instrument, document or matter with a forged attestation or signature of a witness thereto." and it means "that the person uttered, offered, disposed of, or put off, the same with intent to defraud, knowing it to be forged." At common law a false document is said to be uttered when it is parted with, tendered or used in some way for a fraudulent purpose. For the purposes of the plea, it must be that the solicitor admitted the uttering of the last Will and Testament of the deceased knowing it to be forged and with intent to defraud. We unreservedly accept the submission made by Mr Simpson of counsel for the Law Society that the plea to the Charge constitutes an admission by the solicitor that the solicitor knew the Will of the deceased was forged and the he so knew between 6 September 1990 and 10 January 1991, being the period during which the alleged Will is said to have been executed by the deceased and during which the solicitor filed a Summons for Probate of that alleged Will. The evidence of the attesting witness would have been a sufficient answer to the Charge. Having established those facts, it must also follow, in our opinion, that the Grant of Probate on 11 January 1991 is also tainted with illegality and all subsequent transactions by the solicitor on the trust funds of the Estate of the deceased are similarly so tainted. It is an extremely serious matter to seek to propound a Will in the Supreme Court knowing that that Will is a forgery. High standards are expected of legal practitioners, particularly in their dealings with clients and the Courts. Courts, the public, litigants and other practitioners must have confidence in the integrity of those who enjoy special privileges as legal practitioners. Legal practitioners cannot involve themselves in shabby, deceptive and dishonourable deceit. The actions of the solicitor were not only deliberately misleading but downright dishonest. And dishonest in a major respect. (See the discussion on the importance of integrity in the legal profession in Law Society v Foreman (1994 4 LPDR 1). The Tribunal has no hesitation at all in finding the solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in uttering a forged Will purporting to be the last Will and Testament of the late Ludwig Gertsch. The Tribunal further has no hesitation in finding the solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in the presentation by him to the Supreme Court of New South Wales of a Summons for Probate and prescribed supporting Affidavits in respect of the alleged Will which the solicitor knew was forged. Misappropriation of Estate moneys Having obtained Probate of the alleged Will on 11 January 1991, the solicitor withdrew from moneys held by him in trust for the estate the sum of $200,000.00 and deposited that money into an account styled "Brian Roberts in trust for Bradley Gertsch". From that money, on 16 July 1992 he withdrew $140,000.00 and deposited that sum to the credit of Patonshire Pty Limited and on the following day, 17 July 1992 he withdrew from the account of Patonshire Pty Limited $40,000.00 and paid that money to himself, $10,000.00 from the said trust account for Bradley Gertsch and deposited that to the credit of himself and his wife and $35,000.00 from the said trust account and deposited that sum to the credit of Odeanne Pty Limited. It transpires that the solicitor's wife was a director of Patonshire Pty Limited and the solicitor himself was a director of Odeanne Pty Limited. But even if those factors were not present, the plain fact is that the Will as propounded by the solicitor enjoined the solicitor to hold the trust moneys of $200,000.00 for Bradley Gertsch, and for no other person. The transfer of moneys from those trust moneys constitutes a serious misappropriation, a breach of trust in a serious respect and is a clear case of professional misconduct. By way of completion of this aspect, the solicitor in his Affidavit Verifying Accounts sworn 12 May 1993 deposes to having paid from the Estate moneys $200,000.00 on 27 August 1991 styled "B. Gertsch re: bequest". And it is clear from the Receiver's evidence that that sum was banked by the solicitor into a trust account in trust for Bradley Gertsch and the above enumerated payments made from that account without any authority or direction by or on behalf of the beneficiary and clearly in breach of trust. The Society, as one of the discrete items of complaint, alleges that "the solicitor misappropriated moneys held by him as trustee for Bradley Gertsch, a minor." This Complaint must be dismissed for the simple reason that once it is accepted that the Will was a forgery then the moneys that the solicitor held were held by him in trust for a beneficiary or beneficiaries yet to be determined. It is not our role to investigate that aspect - there may be a prior or subsequent valid Will or there may be an intestacy - but whichever way one looks at it the $200,000.00 could not have been held in trust for Bradley Gertsch. That money, and all of the rest of the estate moneys, must have been held by the solicitor in trust for whoever is ultimately found to be properly entitled to the money, whether under a valid Will or upon intestacy. It follows that even the transfer of the $200,000.00 is a misappropriation as are the further transfers from those funds, and clearly constitute professional misconduct. It must follow, therefore, that the plea entered by the solicitor before His Honour Judge Gallen has very serious implications for the estate. And for the solicitor, because it means that all his dealings with the estate and all his payments out (at least in so far as are relevant to those proceedings) were not dealings and payments made in discharge of his duties as trustee. This leads us to the next serious matter - Complaint 7 alleges that the solicitor "misappropriated moneys held by him as trustee for the Estate of the Ludwig Gertsch". It is clear from the evidence that the solicitor misappropriated some $185,000.00, being part of the $200,000.00 withdrawn from the estate and deposited into the account in an alleged trust for Bradley Gertsch. In addition, it is clear from the Receiver's Report that the solicitor took from the trust moneys some $274,000.00 consisting of four cheques (in total $97,500.00) in which he deposited into his office account and some $176,500.00 in cheques which the filed Probate Accounts (prepared and sworn to by the solicitor) show were due to him by "V. Esposito". The evidence before this Tribunal by Mr Esposito shows clearly that he never instructed the solicitor to carry out legal work in anywhere near the sums appropriated, that he has not received any bills or accounts whatsoever from the solicitor and that the solicitor had not sought or obtained his consent before appropriating moneys for the various cheques. For completion, one of the cheques dated 18 January 1990 is stated to have been paid to the solicitor upon Mr Esposito's direction for "fees for car and living expenses" in $50,000.00. Mr Esposito states: "Only one motor vehicle was ever purchased to my knowledge and that was for a sum not exceeding $30,000.00. I have no idea what the difference refers to." It is true that on 18 April 1991 Mr Esposito signed a document which purported to be an agreement with the solicitor as a retainer for the solicitor's services for a fee of $84,000.00 per annum. Mr Esposito says that he does not recall having signed this document, he admits that the signature is his but he says that from time to time the solicitor would give to him or produce documents for his signature saying to him: "Vince, just sign this. It's to do with your part of the Estate" and Mr Esposito would invariably sign without questioning or reading it. There seems to be no corroborative justification for the various amounts (in total some $248,000.00) drawn by the solicitor and appropriated to his own use from the estate moneys and alleged to be in relation to Mr Esposito's legal fees other than, perhaps, $30,000.00 in relation to the purchase of a motor vehicle. In the light of the sworn evidence of Mr Esposito, the absence of any evidence by the solicitor, the absence of any other material that would otherwise explain the various payments (e.g. a memorandum of professional costs) we have no hesitation in finding that the solicitor misappropriated moneys held by him as trustee for the estate of the late Ludwig Gertsch, the misappropriated moneys being $428,000.00, being $200,000.00 in relation to the moneys allegedly held in trust for Bradley Gertsch and $228,000.00 being the various cheques withdrawn in respect of Mr Esposito. This latter sum includes $20,000.00 being the unexplained balance of the $50,000.00 cheque styled "fees for car and living expenses". The balance of $30,000.00, as far as the evidence before the Tribunal is concerned, appears to have been explained by Mr Esposito as stated above. The above deals with the primary case against the solicitor advanced by the Law Society. There were other matters also the subject of the Amended Complaint and it is convenient now to deal with those aspects: 1. It was alleged that the solicitor swore and Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities in the Probate Division on 9 January 1991 which did not disclose as an asset a liability of the solicitor to the estate of $30,000.00 in respect of an advance made by or on behalf of the deceased to the solicitor. It transpires that, as a result of the execution of a search warrant upon the solicitor the police located a Loan Agreement dated 4 September 1990 which document was in terms that the deceased lent to the solicitor as borrower $30,000.00 and enjoined the solicitor to "repay the said sum at such time as may be agreed between the parties." It appears that on 4 September 1990 the sum of $30,000.00 was debited against the deceased's bank account by a cheque payable to the solicitor. The bank statement shows that on 4 September 1990 there was a prior deposit of $30,000.00 and a subsequent withdrawal of the $30,000.00 by cheque payable to the solicitor. It also appears that there is a handwritten cheque book record for the same bank account found in a brief case belonging to the deceased within which appears the entry "B. Roberts loan. $30,000.00." The $30,000.00 was deposited into the account of the solicitor and his wife. There is no evidence of that sum ever having been repaid by the solicitor to the deceased or credited to the trust funds of the deceased. We are satisfied, therefore, that the Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities sworn by the solicitor 9 January 1991 was false in that material particular. The $30,000.00 was clearly an asset which should have been disclosed and was peculiarly within the knowledge of the solicitor personally. 2. The said Affidavit also failed to disclose all or any part of $89,000.00 withdrawn by the solicitor from the account of the deceased on 19 October 1990 and purporting to be legal fees paid in advance. It is convenient to deal with all other matters pertaining to this $89,000.00. On or about 22 October 1990 the solicitor attended upon the ANZ Bank and produced a letter to that Bank dated 19 October 1990 purporting to be signed by the deceased and in the following words: "I hereby authorise and direct you to draw from either my cash management fund and/or term deposit and/or access account the sum of $89,000.00 to be paid to B. Roberts on account of professional fees for the year commencing 20 October 1990 until 19 October 1991." The solicitor also handed to the Bank a cheque drawn on the account of the deceased payable to "B. Roberts Solicitor" in the sum of $89,000.00 and purporting to be signed by the deceased. At the same time, the solicitor produced to the Bank a letter purportedly signed by the deceased in the following terms: "I hereby authorise and direct you to hand to Brian B. Roberts, Solicitor, my safety deposit container held on my behalf by your Bank." The $89,000.00 cheque was credited on 22 October 1990 to the office account of the solicitor. It is significant that prior to the deposit of that cheque the account was overdrawn in the sum of $90,914.36. The $89,000.00 being effectively described as legal fees paid in advance was not included as an asset in the Inventory of Property in the said Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities. In the District Court in its Criminal Jurisdiction before His Honour Judge Gallen on Monday 10 October 1994 the solicitor, in the circumstances set out earlier in this Determination, pleaded guilty to charges that he made a false instrument, being the cheque drawn on the account of the deceased and made payable in the sum of $89,000.00, with intent to induce the ANZ Bank to accept that instrument as genuine and because of that acceptance to do some act to the prejudice of the deceased or to the Public Trustee; he pleaded guilty to a charge of making a false instrument, being a letter authorising the ANZ Bank to debit funds from the accounts of the deceased with similar intent and he further pleaded guilty to making a false instrument, being a letter authorising the Bank to hand to the solicitor a safety deposit container belonging to the deceased with the same intent. The Tribunal has no hesitation in concluding that those actions individually including his failure to disclose the $30,000.00 debt and the $89,000.00 withdrawals and all of them collectively constitute professional misconduct. His failure to make appropriate disclosure in the Supreme Court affidavits appear to from part of a scheme by the solicitor to defraud the Estate of the deceased. 3. Regulation 8 of the Legal Profession (Trust Accounts and Controlled Money) Regulation, 1988 provides in sub- regulation (3) that a solicitor shall not withdraw trust money in satisfaction of any costs or disbursements unless, inter alia, the person for whom the money is held has authorised the withdrawal and the solicitor has delivered to that person an outline bill. It has been established earlier in this Determination that the solicitor withdrew substantial sums of money from the trust moneys held by him in trust for the estate of the deceased on account of alleged legal fees due to the solicitor by Mr S. Esposito. It has also been established that such withdrawals were not on account of any such legal fees nor on account of any disbursements. In order to fall within Regulation 8(3)(a) it seems to us that, at the very least, it must be established that the solicitor is owed money on account of costs and disbursements because the words used are "in satisfaction of" costs or disbursements and there cannot be "satisfaction" is there have not been costs incurred and disbursements paid (or to be paid). There was no evidence before us that would establish that the solicitor was owed costs or disbursements in the sums referred to and, although there is clearly a misappropriation, there does not appear to be a breach of this Regulation. We are therefore not satisfied that this Complaint is made out. 4. On 22 February 1993 the solicitor filed Probate Accounts covering the period 21 November 1990 to 16 December 1990. These Accounts failed to show cheques drawn on the Estate bank account and paid by the Bank in total $512,621.72. The evidence of the Receiver shows that in these Accounts there is a discrepancy between the Accounts filed and the true position as shown in the Bank statements relative to the Estate account of $517,774.95. The Accounts indicated that an amount of $517,777.02 was the balance held while the true position was that the balance in the bank account at the date of the last entry on 31 August 1992 was only $2.07. The Society submitted that the preparation of those accounts and the filing of the Affidavit Verifying in the Supreme Court constituted professional misconduct. In fairness to the solicitor, the Society drew the attention of the Tribunal to a further Affidavit Verifying Accounts filed in the Probate Division of the Supreme Court and sworn 12 May 1993. This Affidavit deposed, again, that the Accounts contained a full, true and just account for the period 21 November 1990 to 16 December 1992. It appears that the solicitor, during the course of the administration of the estate assets recognised that his original Accounts for the estate were deficient and he filed more appropriate Accounts in May 1993. The Receiver has analysed and has concluded that there are deficiencies even in these later Accounts in $9,915.24 due to various items not being credited and debited. When the solicitor appeared before the Tribunal on 29 July 1994 he protested vigorously about this Complaint against him. It is curious that, in his Statutory Declaration which he has filed in the Tribunal and which was put in evidence by the Society, he did not annex his Affidavit Verifying Accounts 12 May 1993. But be that as it may, there is no doubt that that Affidavit was sworn by the solicitor and filed by him in the Probate Registry. In the absence of the solicitor, we are unable to conceive of a purpose in him originally filing Accounts showing that the estate position was far better than what the true position was by some $512,621.72. But it is clear that on 12 May 1993 the solicitor filed a further Affidavit which disclosed the majority of the cheques that he had not previously disclosed and, having regard to this second Affidavit we take the view that there was nothing sinister about the first Affidavit, that it was probably prepared ineptly, and having regard to the analysis of the Receiver as was the second Affidavit in that both Affidavits had within them a number of failings and omissions. The second Affidavit went a considerable distance towards rectifying the situation disclosed in the first Affidavit and, in all these circumstances we are not persuaded that the relevant facts disclose any professional misconduct. 5. In an Affidavit sworn 3 February 1993 in certain proceedings in the Equity Division in which the solicitor was the defendant the solicitor swore an Affidavit in which he deposed that the legal fees paid to him on the Grant of Probate were $12,000.00 drawn on 18 January 1991 and $3,000.00 drawn on 4 April 1991, in total being the costs of administration of the Estate of the deceased to 3 February 1991, when at all times the fact was that the sum drawn by him on 18 January 1991 was not $12,000.00 but $26,000.00. Why the solicitor would want to tell the Equity Court that he took out $12,000.00 when he in fact took out $26,000.00 is not immediately apparent, except that one might not unreasonably conclude that that type of misleading statement in a sworn document was consistent with his other misleading statements in other sworn documents to which we have referred which indicate continued grossly excessive and unauthorised withdrawals from the estate moneys to his own account. It would not be unfair to conclude that the totality of the dealings by the solicitor in the Estate moneys constituted a scheme by him to defraud the Estate and the ultimate beneficiaries of the moneys misappropriated by the solicitor. Viewed in that light it seems to us that his sworn evidence before the Equity Court was deliberately misleading, was clearly wrong and must constitute professional misconduct. Summary of findings The Tribunal has found the solicitor guilty of professional misconduct in the following respects: A. That on 9 January 1991 he swore an Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities in the Supreme Court, Probate Division, which failed to disclose as an asset the liability of the solicitor to the Estate of the late Ludwig Gertsch of $30,000.00 in respect of an advance made by or on behalf of the deceased to the solicitor. B. That on 9 January 1991 the solicitor swore an Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities in the Supreme Court, Probate Division which failed to disclose all or any part of a sum of $89,000.00 withdrawn by the solicitor from the account of the deceased on 19 October 1990 purporting to be legal fees paid in advance. C. That on or about 9 January 1991 the solicitor filed in the Supreme Court the said Affidavit. D. That on or about 3 February 1993 the solicitor swore an Affidavit in the Supreme Court Equity Division in which he deposed that legal fees paid to him on the Grant of Probate of the said deceased were $12,000.00 drawn on 18 January 1991 and $3,000.00 drawn on 4 April 1991 being the costs of the administration to 3 February 1991 of the said Estate when the fact was that the sum drawn by him on 18 January 1991 was $26,000.00. E. That the solicitor misappropriated moneys held by him as trustee for the said Estate by withdrawing moneys held by him in trust for the said estate and depositing moneys (being $200,000.00) into an account styled "Brian Roberts in trust for Bradley Gertsch" when, at the time of such withdrawal, the solicitor knew that the alleged Will under which Bradley Gertsch was a beneficiary was in fact a forgery. F. That the solicitor misappropriated moneys held by him as trustee for the said Estate by transferring from the said account styled "Brian Roberts in trust for Bradley Gertsch" the sum of $140,000.00 and paying same to Patonshire Pty Limited, $35,000.00 and paying same to Odeanne Pty Limited and $10,000.00 and paying same to the wife of the solicitor. G. That the solicitor misappropriated moneys held by him as trustee for the said Estate by withdrawing from the estate moneys the sum of $228,000.00, said to be on account of legal fees and/or on account of legal fees due to the solicitor from Mr Esposito and in one case said to be on account of "fees for car and living expenses" by direction of Mr V. Esposito, in circumstances where there were no legal fees due to the solicitor from Mr V. Esposito or "living expenses" due to the solicitor from Mr V. Esposito. H. That the solicitor uttered a forged Will purporting to be the last Will and Testament of the deceased. I. That the solicitor propounded the said forged alleged Will in the Supreme Court of New South Wales by his filing in that Court of a Summons for Probate and prescribed supporting affidavits in respect of the said forged alleged Will. J. That the solicitor prepared a false cheque in the sum of $89,000.00 and presented same to ANZ Banking Group Limited with intent to induce that Bank to accept the cheque as genuine. K. That the solicitor prepared a false letter expressing itself to be a letter of authorisation and presented same to the ANZ Banking Group Limited with the intent of inducing that Bank to accept the letter of authorisation as genuine. L. That the solicitor prepared a false letter expressed it to be a letter of authorisation authorising the ANZ Banking Group Limited to hand to the solicitor a safety deposit container belonging to the deceased with intent to induce the said Bank to accept the letter as genuine. The above findings of professional misconduct are serious and warrant the strongest disciplinary action. The solicitor was admitted to practice on 21 December 1978. He holds the degrees of Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Laws from the University of New South Wales. He has been, from time to time a partner and an employed solicitor, both in private practice, with a statutory authority and with a corporation. Unfortunately the solicitor has not appeared on the hearing of this matter and we are therefore unable to make any assessment of the solicitor or to fathom the reasons behind his activities or hear any explanations or defence that the solicitor might have offered. His conduct is disgraceful and dishonourable and indicates, quite clearly, that he is not a fit and proper person to hold a practising certificate in this State, neither is he a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll of Solicitors in this State. Orders The Tribunal makes the following Orders: 1. The name of Brian Barrington Roberts be and the same is removed from the Roll of Solicitors in New South Wales. 2. The costs of the Law Society be paid by the solicitor, such costs to be assessed as if assessed by a Supreme Court Costs Assessor pursuant to the provisions of Part 11 Legal Profession Act. 3. If the parties cannot agree on the quantum of those costs, either party to have liberty to apply to the Tribunal to determine the amount of those costs. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.