Muc (trading as G H Healey & Co Solicitors) v Monaco [2007] NSWSC 326

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Muc (trading as G H Healey & Co Solicitors) v Monaco [2007] NSWSC 326

HEARING DATE(S) : 10/04/2007

JUDGMENT DATE : 17 April 2007

JUDGMENT OF : Associate Justice Malpass

DECISION : The Summons is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the costs of the proceedings.

CATCHWORDS : Appeal - interest and costs - discretionary powers - leave

CASES CITED : Hungerfords v Walker (1989) 171 CLR 125

PARTIES : Katarina Muc (t/as G H Healey & Co Solicitors) Coral Lo Monaco

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 12671/06

COUNSEL : Mr G. H. Healey (Solicitor) (Appellant) Mr M. Gilbert (Respondent)

SOLICITORS : G. H. Healey & Co Solicitors (Appellant) Byrnes Lawyers (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Local Court

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Evans LCM

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION : 05/05/06

- 1 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MALPASS

17 APRIL 2007

12671/06 Katarina Muc t/as G H Healey & Co Solicitors v Coral Lo Monaco

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: The appellant is a solicitor. She came to conduct the practice that acted on behalf of the respondent in respect of personal injury proceedings (the practice). 2 The respondent was injured in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 23 December 1986. She recovered judgment in this Court on 18 October 1996(in the sum of $462,366 plus costs). 3 On or before 13 December 1996, the practice came to be holding $412,741.50. 4 On 24 December 1996, a payment in the sum of $248,741.50 was made to the respondent. The practice retained a sum in the order of $128,000 in its trust account. 5 Thereafter there was much correspondence and complaints to the Law Society concerning payment of the balance held in trust. 6 On 21 October 2005, the respondent brought proceedings in the Local Court at Port Macquarie. At that time, the practice was holding the sum of $35,699.30 in its trust account. The respondent sought the recovery of those monies, together with interest and costs. 7 In those proceedings, the practice filed a defence and also made application for relief by way of interpleader. 8 The defence pleaded, inter alia, the following:- "The Defendant disputes that the Plaintiff has provided appropriate or any or satisfactory clarification of payments made by her personally to treatment providers so that the Defendant is not at personal financial risk or professional risk upon distribution of the monies held in Trust".