You have 2 free articles left this month.
Become a Premium Member to enjoy a wide range of benefits.
You have 2 free articles left this month.

Lawyers Weekly - legal news for Australian lawyers

Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
lawyers weekly logo
Big Law

Lawyer’s removalist company faces misleading conduct claims

A legal practitioner’s NSW removalist company has faced allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, but the accuser was ordered to pay more than $70,000 into a court before he can take them further.

July 12, 2024 By Naomi Neilson
expand image

Dr Doron Goldbarsht, a legal practitioner, and his company, You Move Me Group, were hit with allegations of unconscionable conduct, breach of contract, and misleading and deceptive conduct while it provided consulting services between December 2016 and March 2017.

Custom home builder developer Jaydan, formerly known as Didi Family, sought damages, costs and interests in the District Court.

Goldbarsht and You Move Me Group claimed Jaydan’s case is barred by reason of a binding agreement but filed a cross-claim for $155,250 in damages if Jaydan’s case is dismissed for any other reason.

Prior to either case moving forward, Goldbarsht and You Move Me Group flagged an application for security of costs.

Before it could proceed, both parties agreed that Goldbarsht would pay $70,344 to the court for any costs order that may be made against the defendants, if Jaydan does the same with $73,000.

Although an order for security of costs was no longer needed, Judge Susanne Cole ordered Jaydan to pay security within a month and warned the statement of claim would be dismissed if this was not done.

In handing down the orders, Judge Cole said Goldbarsht and his company established there was a “real likelihood” Jaydan would not be able to satisfy any order made by the court for costs.

“The plaintiff has adduced no evidence concerning its own financial resources or the funds to which it may have access from those who stand behind it,” Judge Cole said in written reasons.

“The plaintiff has failed to address the evidential onus to rebut the defendant’s prima facie entitlement to an order for security of costs.”

Naomi Neilson

Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly. 

You can email Naomi at: naomi.neilson@momentummedia.com.au

Comments (0)
    Avatar
    Attach images by dragging & dropping or by selecting them.
    The maximum file size for uploads is MB. Only files are allowed.
     
    The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
    The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
    Posting as
    You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member today
    Got a tip for us?
    If you have any news tips or stories to share, feel free to send them our way.
    Momentum Media Logo
    Most Innovative Company