Oliveri Legal argued the magistrate made “illogical, unreasonable and inconsistent” inferences and erred in law by rejecting principal lawyer Emanueli Oliveri’s evidence about the alleged agreement.

The firm also claimed it was denied procedural fairness because the magistrate made “damaging credibility findings” against Oliveri in circumstances where “the matter that underpinned the unfavourable findings had not been put to him either sufficiently, or at all”.

NSW Supreme Court’s Justice Nicholas Chen dismissed all three grounds and ordered Oliveri Legal pay costs.

“[Oliveri Legal] was put on notice of that evidence and had an opportunity to respond to it,” Justice Chen said.

“Further, the cross-examination of Oliveri by [Danis] squarely challenged the credibility and reliability of Oliveri, including cross-examination that covered the matters that underpinned the [finding].”

Danis told the Local Court he introduced the client to the firm around December 2018 and entered into an agreement to provide his services in exchange for 50 per cent of the legal fees, minus counsel fees and disbursements.

When the bill was paid, Oliveri Legal transferred only $50,000 to Danis and later claimed this was a “loan repayable on demand”.

VIEW ALL

The magistrate sided with Danis, having found there was no evidence of a loan other than the “belated assertions” in a letter of demand sent after the trader commenced legal action.

The magistrate also accepted Danis’ evidence and rejected “attacks on his credibility in circumstances where I cannot rely on the alternative version” advanced by Oliveri Legal.

An order was made for the firm to transfer the remaining $43,340.

There was originally a claim made against Oliveri, but this was dismissed and no appeal has been brought against it.

The case is Oliveri Legal Pty Ltd v Danis [2024] NSWSC 1063 (22 August 2024).