Australia, June 27 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on May 26:

1. HIS HONOUR: Over a decade ago, the plaintiff Rekha Sanjiv became embroiled in litigation consequent upon the breakdown of her marriage to Dr Sanjiv Shah (Dr Shah) and adjustment of property interests between them.

2. Unhappily, as the events of her vexed litigious life recorded in this judgment will show, the plaintiff has spent more final hearing time against her final lawyers (the defendants), over her disputed claims regarding the costs of them acting for her, than she did with Dr Shah in the family law litigation.

3. In October 2014, Dr Shah commenced proceedings in this Court seeking appointment of trustees for sale of matrimonial property the couple held at Epping, which property was registered in the sole name of the plaintiff (Epping property). Within two weeks, the plaintiff commenced proceedings in the Family Court of Australia (Family Court) [1] seeking orders pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (FLA) for adjustment of property interests between herself and Dr Shah.

4. Since the commencement of that litigation, the plaintiff has had a number of lawyers acting for her, including Slater & Gordon, Prominent Lawyers and relevantly, the first defendant in these proceedings, Coleman Greig Lawyers (CGL). The second defendant, Karina Ralston (since July 2018, a Principal of CGL), [2] is the solicitor with CGL who had the main carriage of the plaintiff's matter (Ms Ralston). Keith Spencer of Spencer Legal (Mr Spencer) relevantly acted for Dr Shah.

5. The Family Court proceedings were, in circumstances recited below, resolved.

6. CGL commenced to act for the plaintiff in June 2018 pursuant, it says, to costs/fees agreements. Relevantly, there were two forms of such agreement:

1) an agreement dated 29 June 2018 [3] (CA1); and

2) an agreement dated 15 June 2022 (CA2). [4]

7. CGL rendered 13 invoices to the plaintiff over a period from 29 June 2018 to 2 August 2022 totalling $482,865.35. The first 11 invoices were rendered pursuant to CA1 with the remaining two being rendered pursuant to CA2.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19706466774401d71f8f37c5)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.