NSW Caselaw
Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Steele v Marshan [2012] NSWCA 141 Hearing dates: 14 May 2012 Decision date: 14 May 2012 Before: Basten JA at 1; Whealy JA at 20 Decision: (1) Dismiss the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of Adamson J in the Common Law Division. (2) Order the applicant to pay the costs of the respondent in this Court. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Catchwords: APPEAL - civil - leave to appeal - second appeal in series - appeal below limited to question of law - issue of principle raised for the first time in application for leave to appeal - whether application without merit
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - existence of retainer - solicitor performed work and appeared prior to provision of written agreement and costs disclosure - whether relationship of solicitor and client existed - discussion of Pegrum v Fatharly (1996) 14 WAR 92; Hendriks v McGeoch [2008] NSWCA 53; (2008) Aust Torts Rep ¶81-942; Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paull Partners Pty Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 523 Legislation Cited: Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 (NSW) Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW), ss 309, 311, 317 Div 11 Local Court Act 2007 (NSW), ss 39, 40 Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101 Cases Cited: Australian Energy Ltd v Lennard Oil NL [1986] 2 Qd R 216 Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paull Partners Pty Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 523 Hendriks v McGeoch [2008] NSWCA 53; (2008) Aust Torts Rep ¶81-942 Integrated Computer Services Pty Ltd v Digital Equipment Corp (Aust) Pty Ltd (1988) 5 BPR 11,110 Pegrum v Fatharly (1996) 14 WAR 92 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Robert Lindsay Steele - Applicant Maurice Robert Marshan - Respondent Representation: Counsel:
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate