Mr Mitry, founder of Mitry Lawyers, was engaged to assist Mr Kalloghlian with advancing and defending claims against his builder Pure Construction Management (PCM). Mr Kalloghlian also brought proceedings against an architect and directors of both companies.

When these claims failed and Mr Kalloghlian was left with a costs order, he attempted to not only secure an order that would prevent him from paying the law firm but also attempted to have an order made against Mr Mitry to pay Mr Kalloghlian costs.

In the original hearing, Mr Kalloghlian alleged Mr Mitry had “woefully prepared” his case “with insufficient evidence”.

He also alleged it was Mr Mitry’s “fault” that a claim he wanted to bring against the architect was made too late.

The primary judge dismissed this on the basis Mr Kalloghlian had not proved Mr Mitry’s behaviour was “quite plainly unjustifiable”.

In the appeal, Mr Kalloghlian diverted from the original allegations against Mr Mitry and instead focused on what he had believed was an “absence of a defence” to PCM’s payment claim for costs.

Mr Kalloghlian submitted that “any competent solicitor should have recognised this from the outset and advised accordingly”, and contended the absence of this advice “gave rise to a strong prima facie case” against his former lawyer.

VIEW ALL

The Court of Appeal dismissed this.

“In addition to departing impermissibly from the case that Mr Kalloghlian ran … the argument is without merit when regard is had to all the circumstances,” the court found in its written judgment.