Now, the matter is before the state’s Supreme Court and includes a counterclaim that the firm owes Mr Hyde over $500,000 for allegedly overcharging him and failing to comply with disclosure obligations.

Earlier this month, Stockley Furlong failed to overturn a ruling that allowed Mr Hyde to plead a new action for an account by way of counterclaim. This was in response to allegations by the firm that Mr Hyde is indebted to it for an unpaid balance of a running account.

Mr Hyde’s allegations that the firm overcharged him and failed to give adequate disclosures were included in his fifth and latest amended defence and counterclaim, filed after October last year.

Stockley Furlong opposed allowing Mr Hyde to plead a new action because the account was sought in respect of payments made more than six years before the commencement of the proceedings.

The firm argued the court was precluded from granting Mr Hyde leave to make any amendments due to this time restraint.

It also submitted the action for an account did not arise out of the same facts or substantially the same facts as a cause of action “for which relief had already been claimed in the proceedings”.

The primary judge had not accepted either of Stockley Furlong’s contentions and ruled instead that because the payments had been made into a running account, an analysis of all transactions was permitted “as long as at least one of [the payments] was made within the relevant six-year period of limitation”.

An attempt to appeal this was dismissed by Justices Debra Mullins, Peter Flanagan and James Henry, who found after a “proper analysis” of the matter, “the account sought by [Mr Hyde] is, in substance, a true defence to the [law firm’s] claim” and is “not an independent ‘cause of action’ and therefore is not subject to the limitation period”.

The matter continues.