LCRO 253/2015 SL v NA (28 June 2019) [pdf, 249 KB]
...• He submitted that “the conduct in question amounted to an agreement to the contrary within the meaning of [r] 10.7”. • He also asserted that “the fee proposed by Mr NA was $45,000 which was the amount A/SL Law Limited agreed to protect Mr NA for” and that Mr NA had been paid in excess of that amount. [14] The outcome sought by Mr SL was for it to be held that neither he nor his firm had any liability to pay the outstanding amount. Procedure [15] This review has...