Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A departing law firm partner was ordered to hand back just over $308,000 in overdrawn profits.
Tiplady’s weekend desk clean-out and accusation that his colleagues deliberately transferred its business to another entity in an alleged bid to “exclude him”.
In the two years preceding Tiplady’s departure, Russells’ partnership numbers dwindled from 13 to three, causing some financial pressures. Suffering from his own “difficult financial circumstances”, Tiplady decided to leave in early 2019.
Pleas for Tiplady to stay were lost on him, and negotiations about his exit broke down, with an email from founding partner Stephen Russell making it clear his departure “puts our business at risk and we have had to make some very tough decisions”.
While Tiplady originally gave a retirement date of 16 July 2019, his final day ended up being 31 May 2019. Over the weekend that followed, Tiplady removed his personal belongings from the firm.
On the Monday, Russell and partner Malisa Craig received correspondence that accused them of the allegedly deliberate transfer, apparently based on information Tiplady had received from the Queensland Law Society about the practice’s status.
Queensland District Court Judge Bernard Porter KC did not accept Russell or Craig were involved in “any such transfer with any such purpose” and that Tiplady had “jumped to the worst possible conclusion with much alacrity and little justification”.
The allegations were repeated in a letter sent by Tiplady’s new employer, Mills Oakley, with Judge Porter noting that “one wonders about the proper basis for the serious allegations”.
This letter was the first “solid” indication for Russell and Craig that Tiplady had moved to the BigLaw firm.
An analysis of the 2018 accounts that followed showed the aggregate sum drawn out by Tiplady’s company, Tiplady Co, had exceeded the amount of its share of the net profits for that year.
However, no claim was advanced on the 2018 figures.
Instead, the proceedings dealt with the 2019 financial year, during which Tiplady was said to have overdrawn the $308,171.
Proceedings were commenced in October 2023 after Russell appeared to learn Tiplady’s financial situation had improved.
Russells claimed Tiplady was obliged to repay the sum pursuant to a clause of the partnership deed. Tiplady denied this.
Judge Porter found clause 14.2 created an obligation enforceable at law, and that a partner who has overdrawn on profit “shall forthwith repay the excess to the partnership”. He said it was hard to imagine words “which could more clearly communicate” this.
Tiplady lost on his submission that the wording was “far from what would be required” to displace the entitlement to a final account in equity, with Judge Porter finding the clause created a specific right to recovery of an identified liability annually.
The construction was also supported by the contractual and commercial context and was consistent with the commercial common sense “that the partnership should then be entitled to immediate recovery of overpaid drawings”.
“Ultimately, underlying the defendants’ submissions seems to be an assumption that the general equitable account between partners on dissolution is specially entrenched, despite the terms partners might agree. I do not agree,” Judge Porter said.
“While partnership has equitable characteristics, partners are entitled to regulate their relationship by contract and that contract is enforceable according to its terms.
“Where, as here, the relationship between partners is regulated by a detailed and professionally prepared Deed, that principle applies with all the more force.”
Tiplady was also unable to dispute the return of the $308,171 based on the dissolution of the partnership, and that an adjustment to the May 2019 accounts two years later had the effect of varying those accounts in a way that eliminated liability.
“Where Tiplady decides to join another firm without telling his partners, retire without proper notice and then refuse to engage with them in relation to conduct of the affairs of the dissolved partnership, the remaining partners have no choice but to continue to conduct the business of the RCT Partnership,” Judge Porter said.
“Tiplady had an opportunity to be heard on the May 2019 Accounts and was invited to do so by Mr Russell.
“He chose not to take it up.”
Citation: Russells (A Firm) v Tiplady Legal Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Tiplady Practice Trust & Ors [2026] QDC 155.
