NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: IFW Global Pty Limited v Seung Phil Yang t/as Youngs Attorneys [2019] NSWSC 953 Hearing dates: 25 July 2019 Decision date: 29 July 2019 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Adamson J Decision: (1) Extend the time within which the plaintiff was entitled to commence these proceedings to 31 January 2019.
(2) Dismiss the appeal.
(3) Order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings. Catchwords: APPEAL – no leave sought – limited to questions of law – construction of Uniform Law – whether law practice entitled to recover legal costs when disclosure requirements of Uniform Law as to legal costs had not been complied with – factual findings open to Court below – no error of law shown
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – whether legal services provided is question of substance not form – where legal services found to have been provided in the context of investigative services – disclosure obligations apply to provision of legal services Legislation Cited: Legal Practitioners Act 1898 (NSW), s 21 Local Court Act 2007 (NSW), ss 39, 40 Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW), ss 6, 10, 30, 32, 33, 38, 103, 169, 174, 175, 178, 194 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.1 Cases Cited: Australian Broadcasting Corporation Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321; [1990] HCA 33 Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139 Blatch v Archer (1774) 1 Cowp 63; (1774) 98 ER 969 Burbridge v Wolf [2008] NSWSC 60 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Hattersley (2001) 51 NSWLR 333; [2001] NSWSC 60 Lewis v Doran [2008] NSWSC 186 M47/2018 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] HCA 17; (2019) 93 ALJR 732 Orrong Strategies Pty Ltd v Village Roadshow Ltd [2007] VSC 1; (2007) 207 FLR 245 Rose v Tunstall [2018] NSWCA 241 Small v K & R Fabrications (W'gong) Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 70 Wolfenden v International Theme Park Pty Ltd (trading as Wonderland) [2008] NSWCA 78 Zizza v Seymour [1976] 2 NSWLR 135 Category: Principal judgment Parties: IFW Global Pty Limited (Appellant) Phil Seung Yang t/as Youngs Attorneys (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: A Duc (Plaintiff) V Bedrossian (Defendant)
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