Login
Woman’s legal fee fight with SA firm spans multiple courts
A woman’s fight with a South Australian boutique law firm was shut down by the Federal Court – but not before her matter was heard by a number of judges, including at the High Court level.
Naomi Neilson
Susan Jane Scott, a former client of NIMLAW with a $20,312.98 debt in legal fees, has fought against the boutique firm over a bankruptcy notice for almost two years, with no clear signs of stopping.
In that FCFCOA decision, Judge Robert Cameron was satisfied Scott had committed an act of bankruptcy sometime in November 2023. This was sufficient to dismiss four of Scott’s five grounds of appeal.
Scott’s dispute with NIMLAW stretched back to the June 2023 notice and an attempt to have Justice Natalie Charlesworth set it aside.
When that did not work, Justice Michael O’Bryan and Justice Shaun McElwaine – both of the Federal Court – dismissed two further attempts by Scott to appeal the unsuccessful action, including an application to stay Justice Charlesworth’s decision.
In the latter proceeding, Justice McElwaine noted Scott’s extant notice of appeal “bordered on incoherence and failed to identify what errors had been committed by the primary judge”. An amended notice of appeal also “suffered from the same defects”.
Around this same time, Scott applied to the High Court for the issue of a constitutional or other writ, but Justice Jayne Jagot – sitting alone – said no legal errors were identified and found it to be “both frivolous and vexatious and, accordingly, an abuse of process”.
As of the date of the most recent proceedings before Justice O’Sullivan, Scott had made an application for special leave to appeal from Justice Jagot’s decision, but this was yet to be determined.
Justice O’Sullivan pointed out that Judge Cameron considered there was “no realistic possibility that special leave will be granted”.
He also noted the lengthy history of proceedings filed by Scott.
“This matter has been before a registrar of the court, three justices of the court, a High Court and the primary judge, with the latter conducting a review de novo,” Justice O’Sullivan said.
“None found any merit in the appellant’s submissions. I have already noted that the primary judge was correct to find that the appellant had committed an act of bankruptcy on the material before him.”
Nevertheless, Scott raised three more grounds of appeal, being an alleged jurisdictional error in law and in fact, miscarriage of judicial discretion, and a refusal of procedural fairness.
Justice O’Sullivan dismissed the appeal and ordered Scott to pay costs.
At the same proceeding, NIMLAW sought an order that Scott not be permitted to file any more appeals. During argument, it was clarified Scott had not been permitted to file without the court’s leave.
Given it was filed in submissions only, this was rejected.
“I am not prepared to make an order in these terms. Nevertheless, if the appellant brings yet another application, it is open to the respondent to apply for such an order if so advised,” Justice O’Sullivan said.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
