Frontier Law Group Pty Ltd v Robert Glenn Barkman [2016] NSWSC 1542

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Frontier Law Group Pty Ltd v Robert Glenn Barkman [2016] NSWSC 1542 Hearing dates: 28 October 2016 Date of orders: 28 October 2016 Decision date: 28 October 2016 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Slattery J Decision: Court not satisfied that the caveator's claim has or may have substance. Application dismissed. Catchwords: REAL PROPERTY – urgent application for extension of caveat pursuant to Real Property Act, s 74K –whether the caveator's claim has or may have substance to warrant the extension of caveat. Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW), s 167(a) Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014 (NSW) Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), s 74 K Cases Cited: Dowdle v Inverell Shire Council (1999) 9 BPR 17,349 Queanbeyan Leagues Club Ltd v Poldune Pty Ltd (1996) 7 BPR 15,078 Wilson v Graham (1997) 10 BPR 19,051 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Plaintiff: Frontier Law Group Pty Ltd Defendant: Robert Glenn Barkman Representation: Counsel

Solicitor Plaintiffs: D. Guede, Frontier Law Group Pty Ltd Defendants: in person File Number(s): 2016/233709 Publication restriction: No

EX TEMPORE Judgment 1. The plaintiff in these proceedings, the Frontier Law Group Pty Limited, provided legal services to the defendant, Mr Robert Glenn Barkman in a period probably within the last two years. I say "probably", because the state of the evidence in this application does not permit the Court to establish exactly when legal services were provided, or exactly when any costs agreement between solicitor and client was made. 2. The plaintiff attended yesterday in the Equity Duty List seeking the extension of a caveat over certain real property owned by the defendant Mr Barkman (also referred to as "the client" in this judgment). 3. The plaintiff (also referred to in these reasons as "the solicitor") approached the Court yesterday. A lapsing notice had been served upon the solicitor under Real Property Act 1900, s 74J. The caveat was due to expire at midnight tonight, 28 October 2016. The legal representative appearing for the solicitor, Mr Guede, contended that the matter was urgent. The Court granted leave for short service to bring the matter back at midday today. 4. Unless it makes an order dispensing with service, the Court cannot hear an application to extend the operation of a caveat under Real Property Act, s 74K. This provision commands the Court not to proceed with a hearing "Unless it is satisfied that all interested parties disclosed by the notice which gave rise to the application have been served with copies of the application before the hearing": Real Property Act, s 74K(3). The defendant, the client, Mr Barkman, is here today.