Cummins v Bolster [2016] NSWCATOD 74

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Cummins v Bolster [2016] NSWCATOD 74 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 08 June 2016 Decision date: 08 June 2016 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: Cowdroy ADCJ, Principal Member J Pheils, Senior Member E Hayes, General Member Decision: Claim for compensation dismissed. Catchwords: Finding of unprofessional conduct against solicitor; claim by client for compensation arising from such conduct; loss claimed having no relationship to conduct Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Act 2004 Cases Cited: Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co (1880) 5 App Cas 25 HL, 39 Bedfordshire Police Authority v David Constable [2009] Lloyds Report IR30. Category: Principal judgment Parties: Patricia Cummins (Applicant) Mark Desmond Bolster (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: T Williams (Respondent)

Solicitors: Patricia Cummins (Applicant in person) File Number(s): 1620058

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. Disciplinary Proceedings were brought by The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales against Mark Desmond Bolster (the solicitor). The solicitor's conduct was found to constitute unprofessional conduct. 2. Patricia Cummins (the complainant) was the client of the solicitor. The complainant now brings these proceedings (without an oral hearing) claiming compensation pursuant to s570 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (the Act) which prevailed at all relevant times but which has now been repealed. The relevant portion of s570 provided: 1. A complainant may request a compensation order in respect of the loss suffered by: (a) the complainant, or (b) ... Because of the conduct the subject of the complaint ...". 1. The conduct which led to the adverse finding against the solicitor (the conduct) consisted of a delay in the provision by the solicitor to the complainant of a detailed costs statement, as is considered hereunder. The actual findings against the solicitor were: 1. he delayed in providing an itemised account to the complainant; 2. he failed to provide an updated estimate of costs to the complainant 1. It follows from the finding of the Tribunal that the complainant is entitled to make a claim for a compensation order pursuant to the above section. It is accordingly necessary to consider the nature and extent of the claim in order to determine whether, in fact, the complainant is entitled to compensation because she has suffered a "loss".