Envisioning that if there hadn't been a contradictor, Melissa's side appealing.
Found Deceased Australia - Melissa Caddick, 49, Sydney, NSW, 12 Nov 2020 #7
- Thread starter *Verdigris
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
- Status
Via Marple
Biased against secretive mass killings
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2018
- Messages
- 1,319
- Reaction score
- 8,090
The 'ugly' reality of your day in court — this is how much it actually costs
Lawyers bill not just for the courtroom, but the preparation of the case beforehand — that's meetings, drafting documents, interviewing witnesses and reviewing statements.
Their fees vary according to the area of law and a lawyer's experience.
<snip>
In NSW, solicitors typically charge from around $300 an hour and their daily court rate can be upwards of $3,000.
<snip>
The daily court fee for a junior barrister to work with a solicitor can start at $5,000. Senior barristers command around $10,000 a day. Those with special expertise, for example in an area like defamation, can charge $25,000.
Lawyer fees are separate to disbursement charges, which include things like phone calls, postage, photocopying and filing documents with the court.
Most lawyers take on some work pro bono or reduce their fees in some instances.
(Any guess for how much the parents have spent on their court representation so far?)
Lawyers bill not just for the courtroom, but the preparation of the case beforehand — that's meetings, drafting documents, interviewing witnesses and reviewing statements.
Their fees vary according to the area of law and a lawyer's experience.
<snip>
In NSW, solicitors typically charge from around $300 an hour and their daily court rate can be upwards of $3,000.
<snip>
The daily court fee for a junior barrister to work with a solicitor can start at $5,000. Senior barristers command around $10,000 a day. Those with special expertise, for example in an area like defamation, can charge $25,000.
Lawyer fees are separate to disbursement charges, which include things like phone calls, postage, photocopying and filing documents with the court.
Most lawyers take on some work pro bono or reduce their fees in some instances.
(Any guess for how much the parents have spent on their court representation so far?)
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 30,487
- Reaction score
- 188,207
If there wasn't a contradictor that you and I are paying for, Melissa's "side" would have to appeal on their own dollar.
AK on his potential hairdressing wages. Son on his potential student wages. I, personally, am fine with that.
Why we are footing the bill for her defense is beyond me.
The only entity that needs Melissa moneydivvied up from Maliver money, is the Family Grimley party, for a very good reason.. If they are successful at that, they scoop the pool as to creaming off the apartment, and the 'safe keeping money' from the top , before it's broken up for the investors.
They have to prove, in other words, the Grimleys, that they are not investors, but in some embroidered manner, a sort of silent, unaccountable share holder, in the business operating as Melissa Caddick. Not Maliver. They Grimleys cannot be associated with Maliver in any way, otherwise they are considered in the fraud business, and not the elderly parents business.
What the Grims do not want, is to be bunged in as part of the victims of Maliver Investment Group. This puts them in competition , like everyone, with about 53 other claimaints.. could be more ) ..
Because of this claim , by the Grimleys, as to the separation of the entity of Melissa, and the business entity of Maliver, it requires umpteen barristers, paralegals, solicitors, accountants, clerks, baliffs, detectives, drivers, typists, stenographers, and Uncle Tom Cobbly.,
They have to prove, in other words, the Grimleys, that they are not investors, but in some embroidered manner, a sort of silent, unaccountable share holder, in the business operating as Melissa Caddick. Not Maliver. They Grimleys cannot be associated with Maliver in any way, otherwise they are considered in the fraud business, and not the elderly parents business.
What the Grims do not want, is to be bunged in as part of the victims of Maliver Investment Group. This puts them in competition , like everyone, with about 53 other claimaints.. could be more ) ..
Because of this claim , by the Grimleys, as to the separation of the entity of Melissa, and the business entity of Maliver, it requires umpteen barristers, paralegals, solicitors, accountants, clerks, baliffs, detectives, drivers, typists, stenographers, and Uncle Tom Cobbly.,
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 30,487
- Reaction score
- 188,207
Yep. I definitely get the feeling that while Melissa's parents (somehow) are paying for their own barrister-defence, WE are paying for their other barrister-defence ... namely barrister Bender who is defending Melissa's 'estate'.
A judge doesn't want to turn in poor work. Professional self-respect. When a judgement is overturned on appeal (as opposed to merely being the subject of appeal) it is an adverse reflection on the judge's work. Yes, the whole system costs money and you can have your own attitude to that.
I am just suggesting that the appointment of the contradictor might indicate that the judge is inclined to go hard on (that is, against) Melissa's side rather than the reverse. It might not be an indicator at all, just something they do when a party's alive-or-dead status is not straightforward.
Last edited:
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 30,487
- Reaction score
- 188,207
I understand all that, JLZ. Having followed and researched many a court case here.
What I don't understand is why we are paying for that. What the heck does the general public, the taxpayer, have to do with Melissa's estate.
If Melissa's estate is to be defended, then let Melissa's beneficiaries be advised by the judge that they should seek legal representation for her estate. That should be enough to forestall an appeal. They have been advised. It is up to them to decide what they want to do.
Perhaps Melissa's beneficiaries could speak with Melissa's parents and find out how they are affording an expensive barrister, and follow the same route.
Who the inheritors are, supposing there is something to inherit, might be a whole new argument. At this stage there aren't such beneficiaries to be advised, won't be until after probate.
I don't mean to patronize at all. This area of law is new to me.
SLouTh
In a world where you can be anything, be kind!
- Joined
- May 9, 2013
- Messages
- 4,439
- Reaction score
- 35,217
I think ....... that a Contradictor had to be appointed by the Court, to fulfil the obligations of "The Act"...
Pursuant to s 23, or alternatively, s 37P, of the Act, counsel nominated by the President of the Bar Association of New South Wales is to be appointed to act as contradictor for the purposes of making submissions as contradictor to the application by the plaintiff for relief against the first defendant (Contradictor)
NSD1220/2020 Orders 24 May 2021 (fedcourt.gov.au)
I think they had to do this as there was no person to serve the papers on .... as AG had withdrawn from representing MC ...
AG had very expensive "legal advice" by specialist lawyers in this field ..... and most likely was told that if he withdrew his representation, then the court would appoint the "Contradictor", and that the court costs would be paid by ASIC ....
Rorting of the system??? Possibly yes.....
But is this a surprise considering this case?? NO .... All IMO
Pursuant to s 23, or alternatively, s 37P, of the Act, counsel nominated by the President of the Bar Association of New South Wales is to be appointed to act as contradictor for the purposes of making submissions as contradictor to the application by the plaintiff for relief against the first defendant (Contradictor)
NSD1220/2020 Orders 24 May 2021 (fedcourt.gov.au)
I think they had to do this as there was no person to serve the papers on .... as AG had withdrawn from representing MC ...
AG had very expensive "legal advice" by specialist lawyers in this field ..... and most likely was told that if he withdrew his representation, then the court would appoint the "Contradictor", and that the court costs would be paid by ASIC ....
Rorting of the system??? Possibly yes.....
But is this a surprise considering this case?? NO .... All IMO
SLouTh
In a world where you can be anything, be kind!
- Joined
- May 9, 2013
- Messages
- 4,439
- Reaction score
- 35,217
All in all, just a legal loop hole that could be taken advantage of by AG in this situation .... possibly meaning that there was personal money instead, that could be used for the family's defense rather than on MC's defense.... ???
all IMO
SLouTh
In a world where you can be anything, be kind!
- Joined
- May 9, 2013
- Messages
- 4,439
- Reaction score
- 35,217
ASIC really do need to win this case..... and have the estate liquidated asap...... both MC's Personal Estate and Maliver as it would appear that bankruptcy is not an option in this case....
Otherwise this is just the beginning of a long drawn out affair.... where no one is already winning, and Investors will lose even more..... IMO (and for the good of the public purse)
Just on those parts of the Act [Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)], s23 and s37P seem to give the judge powers and options rather than to confer obligations; and there is nothing specifically about contradictors. I think that is the Act that is meant because it is named in the preceding paragraph of the order you cite.
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976
Pepper77
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 370
- Reaction score
- 1,044
I thought she was also open to considering other investors.
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 30,487
- Reaction score
- 188,207
I never understood the decision to give AK more of the investors money, so he could live off it.
That is what a job or Centrelink is for.
Sophist
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2021
- Messages
- 89
- Reaction score
- 464
Agree South Aussie
This all irritating, especially Melissa’s funds vs Maliver’s and what can be liquidated to provide returns but as the judge has already said I believe she doesn’t want it all washed together. The accounting of this is all so messy in and out I’m not sure how it will be untangled. What went into her accounts vs business and where did it all go? Are her parents actually investors or just misguided family?
Will it just be fought over until there is nothing left? And why such a fight over what ostensibly seems to be two cars, a shiny necklace, some frocks and the remainder of what is left after the two mortgages less costs divided among many, many people??
Estelle
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2009
- Messages
- 6,727
- Reaction score
- 18,382
I heartily agree with you on that. What justification did they have for that decision? That he had so little in his bank account? Did they search to see if he had other accounts or hidden cash? AK is not a child but he has been treated as if he is one and totally irresponsible in my opinion - even money for cigarettes. He should have gone down to Centrelink the next week and got online to Seek to apply for a job as nobody knew of him then.
Was AK treated as he has been because of OC? But Centrelink would have included an allowance for OC. But even paying for OC's private school fees when he should have had to go to the local high school as his days of being privately educated ended on the day of the raid. But OC's birth father should have been financially responsible for him anyway.
Where is AK living now? Still living at Dover Heights? Is the furniture there or is it in storage? Unemployed? Has he even been to Centrelink yet? He is probably still living on the money received as it was an outrageous amount to give him. He seems to have lied to police about when MC left but never treated with suspicion?
- Status