- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Council
- 28 August 2002
Mr And Mrs Lettice And Lawcover Pty Ltd Bankruptcy Petition
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 46 of 50
| Next Item »
Page: 4327
The Hon. PETER BREEN [6.13 p.m.]: Tonight I draw the attention of honourable members to the plight of Fred and Evelyn Lettice, who are the subject of bankruptcy proceedings issued on behalf of LawCover Pty Ltd, the professional indemnity insurance company wholly owned and operated by the Law Society on behalf of New South Wales solicitors. I spoke about this matter during debate on the Legal Profession Amendment (National Competition Policy Review) Bill, and members may recall that Mr and Mrs Lettice sued their solicitor for negligence over a conveyancing error that failed to reveal they did not have access over a right of way to most of their 25-acre property at Theresa Park, near Camden. The Supreme Court ruled that the solicitor was negligent, and costs and damages were awarded to Mr and Mrs Lettice. LawCover appealed this decision after paying the verdict to the Lettices, and the Court of Appeal ruled, unbelievably, that more than six years had elapsed since the solicitor's error and ordered Mr and Mrs Lettice to repay the original verdict to LawCover plus the costs of the appeal. Now LawCover has issued a creditor's petition against the Lettices for $408,420.
Since I last spoke about the matter the Lettices have successfully forced access to the landlocked part of their land by bringing another action in the Supreme Court under section 88K of the Conveyancing Act. Unfortunately the relevant legislation provides for the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs where access is obtained by this means. These additional costs, subdivision costs and selling costs mean that the Lettices will be lucky to clear $300,000 from the sale of the formerly landlocked part of their land. But this would be enough to get them out of trouble if LawCover called off the marble-and-glass lawyers and settled for something less than they might otherwise be entitled to. These lawyers, Mallesons Stephen Jaques, demanded the Lettices sign an undertaking not to further encumber their property, and then subsequently criticised them for not raising the money to pay the LawCover debt. LawCover and their fancy lawyers are not easy to deal with, and others might say they are a landmine on the road to justice. But I call on the Attorney General, who has ultimate responsibility for the Law Society and the administration of justice in New South Wales, to intervene in this matter and attempt to interpose some sanity in the negotiations.
When I last raised this matter with the Attorney, he responded through his Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Ian Macdonald, to the effect that he, the Attorney, has encouraged LawCover to resolve the matter. The Hon. Ian Macdonald also indicated that the Attorney could not otherwise intervene in the decision-making process of LawCover because it is an independent company. That is simply not true. As I said earlier, LawCover is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Law Society, which is a creature of statute. The Legal Profession Act requires the Law Society to report to the Attorney General each year and the Attorney shall cause the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. The Attorney General has the same responsibility for the Law Society as the role of God in the order of the universe. Either he can remain silent, as is the custom of the Creator, or the Attorney can involve himself in some planetary manoeuvring on behalf of Mr and Mrs Lettice.
Today I learned that Mr and Mrs Lettice have commenced some manoeuvring of their own by filing a statement of claim in the Supreme Court seeking an injunction against the Law Society. I must emphasise that I knew nothing about this claim, which is breathtaking in its audacity. Mr and Mrs Lettice have asked the Supreme Court to protect law consumers by requiring solicitors to warn their clients that any conveyancing work they do may be rendered obsolete after six years under the statute of limitations. Such a warning would be consistent with the finding of the Court of Appeal in Scarcella v Lettice that the errors of an incompetent solicitor are cured after six years, as if by magic, provided that those errors are discoverable by a competent solicitor.
The appeal judges said it would be apparent to a competent solicitor that the Lettices had a problem. And yet six separate solicitors have conveyed either the Lettice property or the property of their adjoining neighbour in the past twenty years, and none of the solicitors picked up the flaw in the right of way granting access to most of the Lettice property. So much for the judges' observations about conveyancing practice in New South Wales and the competence of solicitors! It says in the Bible we should settle our disputes before going to court, and I sincerely hope that the Attorney General heeds that advice in his role as master of the Law Society.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:39:30 : Update this page