CLICK THE SPONSORS' LOGOS FOR THE LATEST SPECIALS !

GOVERNANCE ISSUES

Home | Definitions | NHR | EMM | EES | BES | IBM Research EMS | Disclaimer | Copyright
 
Tue 18 Mar 2014				    	Recipient:6111MMV1
REF:AAEFCIN1				    	Y/R: Protracted Court Hearings

			IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

The Hon Anthony ALBANESE MP			E:A.Albanese.MP@aph.gov.au
Member for Grayndler				F: {61}(2)9564-1734
PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA				M: {61}(0)
334A Marrickville Rd   MARRICKVILLE    2204	P: {61}(2)9564-3588	

Dear Anthony				cc	Carmel TEBBUTT State MP

	LEGISLATION NEEDED TO REDUCE PROTRACTED HEARINGS
 
I have previously emailed and faxed to you copies of correspondence to 
my State Member of Parliament Carmel TEBBUTT

These documents outlined my unsatisfactory experiences over the last 19 
months with the NSW Legal System in pursuing a Family Provisions Claim 
for my disabled son

This claim started in Apr 2012 under the Succession Act 2006, and 
involves an intestate estate of the father of XXXXXXXX, who has been on 
a disability pension since he was 18 years old and is now 34

My failure to obtain the assistance from the Court to minimise the delay 
tactics of a lawyer indicates that further Federal legislation is required 
{Att A - letter to the Widow's Lawyer Mon 17 Mar 2014}

The "Request for Particulars" for the value of the Estate was filed on 
12 Jul 2012 yet 12 Court hearings later the Widow had failed to comply 
with the Court Directions given and agreed by all parties on 03 Jul 2012

The Widow's lawyer failed to comply with Court Directions yet produces 
unacceptable "Calderbank" offers while submitting claims for outrageous 
legal costs eg $ 50,000 to LINDSAY J on 17 Jan 2014 
{Att B - p12 Judgment LINDSAY J limited XY Lawyers's costs to $ 30,000}

Whilst I appreciate complaints can be lodged with the Legal Services 
Commissioner [LSC] this is again at a cost to the Public

My reluctance to pursue a Complaint with the NSW Law Society and the 
Legal Services Commissioner is that it could result in a man being 
deprived of his livelihood for a Court Procedure Administrative 
oversight which he has been allowed to exploit for many years

I am informed by my legal advisers that a remedy for these Complaints 
can exist with the new Universal Civil Procedure Rules [UCPR] 2005 for 
the Australian eCourt System, hence this letter to yourself rather 
than my State MP Carmel TEBBUTT 
{Att C - Rules governing ECM expected into force on 10 Feb 2014}

From my observations at the multiple Family Provision Claim Court 
hearings I have attended, there appears to be a great reluctance by 
the surviving Widow, Widower or Executor to divulge the full extent 
of the value of Estates

Settlement of any claim appears to be by negotiation through mediation 
without knowing the true value of the Estate

Whilst this may appear to provide a means of settlement, sometimes all 
legal costs are paid out of the estate to the detriment of the claimants

Consequently, as I have found in this matter the lawyers and barristers 
involved seem to be happy to write letters at $ 100.00 a letter, attend 
Court hearings at $ 330 p/h  and regurgitate lengthy Affidavits 
and Reports while the Courts appear to be unable to manage the cases 
effectively and efficiently 
{eg Att D Costs Barrister YYYYYYYYYYYY}

There appear to be 3 issues that need addressing by new Legislation as 
it is obvious that the s3 "Purpose of the Legal Professions Act 2004" 
has not been fulfilled 
{Att E - s3  "Purpose of Legal Professions Act 2004"}

These issues are:

1	Electronically provide within 1 month after the filing of a death 
	certificate an estimated value of an estate from existing electronic
	records including Bank Records, ATO, Office of State Revenue, ASIC 
	and the State Property and Land Information Office 

2	Reduce the number of Court Hearings whereby if Particulars of Estates
	are not provided either by fining the lawyers involved or fining the
	Widows, Widowers or Executors after 3 hearings without full production

3	Providing an Electronic Notary facility whereby an independent body
	like the Legal Services Commissioners can verify that lawyers are 
	complying with Court Directions in the prescribed manner 
	{Att F - TEDIS Legal Workshop 19 Jun 1989}

NEXT STEPS

I would be pleased to discuss these important issues with you in more 
detail as they will have a significant impact with the new legislation 
and Regulations for the 2013 National Disability Insurance Scheme [NDIS]
 
Yours sincerely	


Carline  
Mother, Carer and Tutor of Plaintiff


Home | Definitions | NHR | EMM | EES | BES | IBM Research EMS | Disclaimer | Copyright