Cachia v Denis Mockler & Rowley (Stewart) Cuddy trading as Stewart Cuddy & Mockler [2007] NSWSC 433

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Cachia v Denis Mockler & Rowley (Stewart) Cuddy trading as Stewart Cuddy & Mockler [2007] NSWSC 433

HEARING DATE(S) : 30/04/2007

JUDGMENT DATE : 4 May 2007

JUDGMENT OF : Hoeben J at 1

DECISION : Judgment in favour of the defendants; Plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings

CATCHWORDS : Claim against solicitors - recovery from solicitors of money paid for disbursements - whether Legal Profession Act 1987 entitled plaintiff to recovery of money so paid - whether monies paid to solicitors under "duress" - whether entitlement to aggravated or exemplary damages.

LEGISLATION CITED : Legal Profession Act 1987 Motor Accident Compensation Act 1999

CASES CITED : Excel Petroleum (NSW) Pty Limited v Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Limited (1984-85) 155 CLR 448 at 468-469 Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Limited (1966) 117 CLR 118 at 149

PARTIES : Saviour Laurence Cachia - Plaintiff Denis Mockler & Rowley (Stewart) Cuddy trading as Stewart Cuddy & Mockler Solicitors - Defendants

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 11643/2006

COUNSEL : Plaintiff in person A Leslie QC - 1st & 2nd Defendants

SOLICITORS : Plaintiff in person Stewart Cuddy & Mockler - 1st & 2nd Defendants

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

HOEBEN J

Friday 4 May 2007

11643/2006 – Saviour Laurence CACHIA v Denis Mockler and Rowley (Stewart) CUDDY trading as STEWART CUDDY and MOCKLER SOLICITORS

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: Nature of claim The plaintiff is not a lawyer and appears for himself. Nevertheless he does have considerable experience in conducting matters on his own behalf. He has appeared on a number of occasions in this Court, in the Court of Appeal and in Special Leave Applications before the High Court. 2 The nature of the claim is not altogether clear. The plaintiff alleges that he retained the defendants as his solicitors in respect of three personal injury claims. He says that in the course of those proceedings the defendants obtained from him $91,350 which they placed in their trust account. Despite frequent requests, he says the defendants failed to supply him with a bill of costs. 3 He says that despite requests on his part the defendants have refused to repay the $91,350. In these proceedings he claims from the defendants that amount, interest which at the present time is in excess of $110,000 and exemplary and aggravated damages. 4 The basis for the plaintiff's claim seems to be as follows: