[Form 6] Notice of Termination of Lawyer's Retainer for the Federal Court of Australia

You have the right to remain silent … in your civil legal dispute

By the time you approach a lawyer to assist with your civil legal dispute you may have already discussed the matter in detail or sent text messages/emails to the other party, their agent, insurance company or lawyers.

Whilst you might think you are progressing the matter:

➲ This is generally a mistake!‍

Most people [unless they are experienced in litigation or legal dispute resolution] will unknowingly proceed to make these communications with the other side on an "open” basis.

This means that everything that is said or written might be capable of being used by the other parties in any subsequent legal proceedings.

We recommend you don't say or write anything until you have spoken to your lawyer

It is generally known that in any criminal matter, you have the “right to remain silent …” as this is well-covered territory on TV/Movie Legal Dramas and in the media.

When it comes to civil disputes we recommend you adopt the same position.

Our advice may be spot on when it comes to large $$ civil disputes.

Proceeding without your lawyer

When the matter is only a minor one, you may not want to go to the time and/or expense of engaging legal advice specific to your situation.

Q: How then can you proceed?

A: Very carefully, and with the assistance of some very specific legal phraseology which you may or may not have seen before.

Please refer to our blog article “How to cast a magic legal spell? The protection afforded by Without Prejudice Settlement Negotiations." for more information.

Credits:

This FAQ was written by James D. Ford GAICD | Principal Solicitor, Blue Ocean Law Group℠.

Important Notice:‍

This FAQ is intended for general interest + information only.

It is not legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or used as such.

We recommend you always consult a lawyer for legal advice specifically tailored to your needs & circumstances.

How do I ensure I get the pre-litigation steps right?

If you have a written agreement with the Debtor/standard terms of trade

The identity of the Debtor and their address for service (incl. email +/or fax) should already be clearly specified in the agreement, or provided by the Debtor as part of your standard business processes.

We also assume that the terms of your agreement will provide permission to serve notices via email or fax (if required).

If there is no written agreement

You will need to consider whether you already know the actual identity of the Debtor/Defendant and their address for notices/Service.

The Debtor/Defendant may not be the person with whom you made the original agreement, or the person who actually published the defamatory statement.

The person you might consider is the Debtor/Defendant may have been acting/dealing as an agent or employee of another person, the actual owner/s of the business, a sole trader, partnership, unincorporated association, company, etc.

If you only have the name of the business, you can start by conducting a free ASIC business names index + business names holder organisation/person searches to determine the owner of the business name, followed by a paid ASIC search to determine a valid + current address for Service.

If the Debtor/Defendant is a Company

Before sending a Letter of Demand/Statutory Demand/Concerns Notice to a Debtor company, we strongly recommend you conduct a paid current ASIC Company Search (min. cost $9) to confirm that:

✅ The Debtor/Defendant company is not currently under administration/in liquidation; and to

✅ Ascertain the companies current registered office address for service.

Legal Assistance

If you have any questions regarding the above please contact our legal team to discuss.

Credits:

This FAQ was written by James D. Ford GAICD | Principal Solicitor, Blue Ocean Law Group℠.

Important Notice:

This FAQ is intended for general interest + information only.

It is not legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or used as such.

We recommend you always consult a lawyer for legal advice specifically tailored to your needs & circumstances.

Generally speaking, to help ensure you obtain the best possible outcome, it is recommended that as soon as practical you:

1️⃣ Proceed to obtain legal advice;

2️⃣ Instruct your lawyer to inform the other side that you have a claim against them, and attempt to settle the matter; and if this is not successful

3️⃣ Proceed to take steps to enforce your legal rights without any further delay.

Apart from the risk of the lapse of any Statute of Limitations Period, if your claim seeks equitable relief, failure to provide notice to the defendant that you have a claim and intend to enforce it, may open the door to allow the defendant to seek reliance on the equitable defence of laches, or more generally estoppel with the circumstances of the case unfolding in support of these defences the longer the defendant is able to show inaction on your part.

What is the equitable defence of laches?

Laches is a defence only available to a defendant in equity, where a plaintiff's lack of diligence and activity in making a legal claim, or moving forward with legal enforcement of a right, is viewed as conduct which allows the defendant to develop a belief that the plaintiff will not be seeking to make any claim and to continue about their life dealing with their affairs in reliance on this belief. Wikipedia

In Streeter v Western Areas Exploration Pty Ltd (No 2) (2011) 278 ALR 291 at para. [635] per McLure P considered:

"Whether the conduct of the plaintiff amounted to an acquiescence or caused the defendant to alter their position in reliance on the plaintiff’s acceptance of their actions”.

Consequently, a defendant may be able to argue the equitable defence of laches on a much shorter time frame than the relevant statutory limitation period.

In Hourigan v Trustees Executors and Agency Co Ltd (1934) 51 CLR 619 per Rich J:

The Court will not “disregard the election of the party not to institute his claim and treat as unimportant the length of time during which he has slept upon his rights and induced the common assumption that he does not possess any”.

In Gillespie & Ors v Gillespie [2013] QCA 99 MARGARET WILSON J (with whom MARGARET McMURDO P & WHITE JA agreed) at para. [79] of her judgment provided a summary of the applicable law regarding the equitable defence of Laches:

"Laches is an equitable doctrine, under which delay can bar a claim to equitable relief."

Deane J (with whom Mason CJ agreed) observed in Orr v Ford that the ultimate test is that enunciated by the Privy Council in Lindsay Petroleum Co v Hurd –

“… whether the plaintiff has, by his inaction and standing by, placed the defendant or a third party in a situation in which it would be inequitable and unreasonable ‘to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted’: see Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co, and also, per Rich J, Hourigan.”

The learned authors of Meagher, Gummow and Lehane’s Equity Doctrines and Remedies posit that there are two types of laches –

(i)         delay with acquiescence, where prejudice to others need not be shown; and

(ii)        more commonly, delay with prejudice to others.

However, in Fisher v Brooker Lord Neuberger said –

“Although I would not suggest that it is an immutable requirement, some sort of detrimental reliance is usually an essential ingredient of laches, in my opinion. In Lindsay Petroleum Co v Hurd (1874) LR 5 PC 221, 239-240, Lord Selborne LC, giving the opinion of the Board, said that laches applied where ‘it would be practically unjust to give a remedy’, and that, in every case where a defence ‘is founded upon mere delay… the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable’.

He went on to state that what had to be considered were ‘the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party, and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as relates to the remedy’.”

Trying the validity of the defence on equitable principles involves the balancing of equities.  

In Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co Lord Blackburn said –

“…it must always be a question of more or less, depending on the degree of diligence which might reasonably be required, and the degree of change which has occurred, whether the balance of justice or injustice is in favour of granting the remedy or withholding it.

The determination of such a question must largely depend on the turn of mind of those who have to decide, and must therefore be subject to uncertainty; but that, I think, is inherent in the nature of the inquiry.”

And in Fysh v Page Dixon CJ, Webb and Kitto JJ said –

“If a plaintiff establishes prima-facie grounds for relief the question whether he is defeated by delay must itself be governed by the kind of considerations upon which the principles of equity proceed.

If the delay means that to grant relief would place the party whose title might otherwise be voidable on equitable grounds in an unreasonable situation, or if, because of change of circumstances, it would give the party claiming relief an unjust advantage or would impose an unfair prejudice on the opposite party, these are matters which may suffice to answer the prima-facie grounds for relief.”

Credits:

This FAQ was written by James D. Ford GAICD | Principal Solicitor, Blue Ocean Law Group℠.

Important Notice:‍

This FAQ is intended for general interest + information only.

It is not legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or used as such.

We recommend you always consult a lawyer for legal advice specifically tailored to your needs & circumstances.

Prior to deciding whether to commence Legal Proceedings

Laches + Limitation Periods

Please read our FAQ: What are the downsides to delaying 1️⃣ Informing the other side of my claim against them; or 2️⃣ Filing my claim with the Court?

Litigation Risk

We strongly recommend you obtain legal advice + assistance regarding:

✅ Determining whether the Debtor has the potential financial means to ultimately pay the debt + interest + legal costs should you be successful in your claim;

✅ If the Debtor is an individual, conducting a Bankruptcy Search;

✅ If the Debtor is a company, conducting a Bankruptcy Search;

✅ Determining whether the Debtor has been or is currently involved in other legal proceedings;

✅ The legal merits of your claim; and

✅ Ensuring you understand that it is extremely rare to recover your legal costs in litigation; and

✅ The inherent Litigation Risk of potential liability for the Debtor's legal costs in commencing legal proceedings in a Court, as opposed to a Tribunal;

✅ The cost + availability of litigation funding, +/or litigation insurance.

Valid + Effective Service

The requirements for valid + effective Service of a Filed Application or Statement of Claim vary depending on the relevant Court or Tribunal.

We strongly recommend you obtain legal advice + assistance regarding:

✅ The selection of the appropriate Court or Tribunal to bring suit; as well as

✅ The drafting of the required Application/Statement of Claim; and

✅ The compliant Service of same on the Debtor once legal proceedings have been filed.

Credits:

This FAQ was written by James D. Ford GAICD | Principal Solicitor, Blue Ocean Law Group℠.

Important Notice:

This FAQ is intended for general interest + information only.

It is not legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or used as such.

We recommend you always consult a lawyer for legal advice specifically tailored to your needs & circumstances.