Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
To avoid wasting the Supreme Court’s scarce time and resources, a judge tossed an application filed against a firm over a short-term retainer that ended over a decade and a half ago.
An attempt by Angela and Hartmut Frigger to commence proceedings against their former firm, Clavey Legal, was criticised by Justice Michael Lundberg for being “frivolous or vexatious, or would amount to an abuse of the processes of the court”.
Mr and Mrs Frigger’s 35-day retainer was terminated by Clavey Legal in March 2010, spurring a number of lawsuits that hinged on the claim the firm caused them “significant loss and damage”.
Their “fruitless” pursuit of Clavey Legal saw them lose in the District Court of Western Australia, have an appeal dismissed in the Court of Appeal, and fail to bring an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia in May 2017.
The fresh attempt in the Supreme Court of Western Australia focused on the structure of Clavey Legal’s business.
In “extremely generalised pleas”, the Friggers alleged the legal structure was established to avoid taxation statutes and had contravened offence provisions in the Legal Profession Act 2008.
The causes of action and claims described in Mr and Mrs Frigger’s revised proposed writ have no reasonable prospects of success and were doomed to fail in their current manner, the court found.
Justice Lundberg said the pleading consisted of “broad and overly generalised assertions, lacking the necessary details of the requisite ingredients, and are highly novel”.
Further, he said the claims must also be seen in the context that, between 2011 and 2017, Mr and Mrs Frigger had “fulsome opportunity” to litigate against their solicitors and failed in this.
“To allow the plaintiffs to pursue the defendants with these new claims, some 17 years after the retainer has concluded, would be to allow the plaintiffs to vex and harass the defendants, and bring the law and this court into disrepute,” Justice Lundberg said.
