Clock ticking on principal lawyer’s far-fetched dog-sitting lawsuit

The firm made a number of sensational allegations about the EA, including a failure to take care of principal solicitor Dominic Green’s dog “in the manner allegedly agreed” while he was on holiday.

The EA also allegedly failed to acceptably have solicitors, paralegals, and other staff “hold the fort” while Green was away; “sabotaged” the firm by assisting an employee with a compensation claim; gave legal advice when she was not qualified; and misappropriated firm money.

When the matter was heard in February, Justice Kate Williams ordered Green & Associates to provide $240,000 in security for costs, paid in three tranches of $80,000 each. The firm was ordered to make the first payment 28 days later, on 13 March.

On 2 April, after the firm failed to make the first payment despite at least one warning, the EA applied to have the proceedings dismissed.

During the hearing on 24 April, a solicitor for Green & Associates – referred to as K Gray – called for an adjournment on the grounds the motion was premature as the firm had filed appeal proceedings against Justice Williams’ security for costs orders.

The adjournment was declined, given that the firm consented to the hearing date at a 20 April directions hearing, confirmed as much in an email on 22 April, and its affidavit made no attempts to arrange representation for the motion until 23 and 24 April.

VIEW ALL

Having determined there was no evidence Green & Associates intended to pay security, or has the capacity to do so, Justice Williams ordered that the proceedings be dismissed.

However, to allow the firm “its day in court” to move forward with the appeal proceedings, the dismissal order was stayed for 28 days.

In making the order, Justice Williams noted it would not be consistent with the interests of justice for Green & Associates to be permitted to keep proceedings on foot for a prolonged period of time.

Justice Williams also accepted the defendants’ submission that the EA is prejudiced by the proceedings remaining on foot, even while stayed.

“The statement of claim makes serious allegations … the continued existence of the proceedings in which such allegations are made is, in itself, a prejudice to the first defendant in circumstances where the proceedings will not move towards final determination unless and until the plaintiff complies with the order for security for costs,” Justice Williams said.

“The plaintiff’s failure to comply with that order has now persisted for six weeks, and there is no evidence of any prospect that the plaintiff will comply with the order in the foreseeable future.”

Citation: Green & Associates Pty Ltd t/as Green & Associates Solicitors v Shea [2026] NSWSC 430.