Search
This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian News

Balkan intrigues ... Old coppers stagger into the Croatian Six inquiry ... 15-year jail terms in 1980 for alleged terrorism ... Miscarriage of justice under review ... Verballing ... Loading-up ... Old fashioned detective "work" ... Evidence so far ... Hamish McDonald reports ... Read more >> 

Politics Media Law Society


Splitting heirs ... How to get rid of the Royals – a Republican tours Orstraya … Underneath their robes – sexual harassment on the bench … Credit card fees – so tricky that only economists know what to do … Muted response to Drumgold vindication … Vale Percy Allan ... Read on ... 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

Blue sky litigation ... Another costly Lehrmann decision ... One more spin on the never-never ... Arguable appeal discovered in the bowels of the Gazette of Law & Journalism ... Odious litigants ... Could Lee J have got it wrong on the meaning of rape? ... Calpurnia reports from the Defamatorium ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian's Bloggers

Online incitements ... Riots in English cities fed by online misinformation about refugees ... Policing and prosecution policies ... Fast and furious processing of offenders ... Online Safety Act grapples with new challenges ... Increased policing of speech on tech platforms ... Hugh Vuillier reports from London ... Read more >> 

"Mistakes of law or fact are a professional inevitability for judges, tribunal members and administrative decision makers."  

Paul Brereton, Commissioner of the National Corruption Concealment Commission, downplaying the Inspector's finding of bias and procedural unfairness with his conflicted involvement in the decision making about Robodebt referrals ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Vale Percy Allan AM ... Obit for friend and fellow-traveller ... Prolific writer on economics and politics ... Public finance guru ... Technocrat with humanity and broad interests ... Theatre ... Animals ... Art ... Read more ... 


Justinian's archive

A triumph for Victorian morality ... Ashton v Pratt ... In the sack with Dick Pratt ... Meretricious sexual services renders contract void on public policy grounds ... Justice Paul Brereton applies curious moral standard ... A whiff of hypocrisy ... Doubtful finding ... Artemus Jones reporting ... From Justinian's Archive, January 24, 2012 ... Who knew the NACC commissioner had strong views on the sanctity of marriage ... Read more ... 


 

 

« Haines blasts Temby | Main | Some good, some turnips »
Saturday
Jan012000

Rosenblum v Foreman

From Justinian's archive ... March 1995 ... When Rupert Rosenblum went to court over a missing house ... Memories of Carol Foreman and her backdated document ... Rocking the foundations of the admin of justice 

Well known Sydney solicitor Rupert Rosenblum is suing his former lover Carol Foreman in the Equity Division of the NSW Supreme Court.

He is seeking to recover about $400,000 which he claims Foreman owes him as a debt, or alternatively under the provisions of the De Facto Relationships Act.

Foreman has spent a good deal of her recent time travelling abroad, however it is expected that she will defend the action.

Rosenblum alleges that he is owed money for his equitable interest in a house that they jointly rebuilt, and which she subsequently sold.

He is also seeking to recover other money that he allegedly provided to her after she was sacked from Clayton Utz and while she was establishing Carol Foreman & Associates.

In October 1993 the Legal Profession Disciplinary Tribunal fined Foreman $20,000 after finding that she had fabricated time sheets at Clayton Utz and misled the Family Court of Australia.

The tribunal used strong words about her – deceitful, disgraceful, evasive, defensive, inappropriate, unsatisfactory and lacking proper contrition. She was also found to have struck at the very foundations of the court system and the administration of justice.

In relation to the constructed time sheet, the transcript shows that Foreman gave this piece of enlightening evidence:

Question: But what you sought to do was let a document go to court in an answer to a subpoena, which had been manufactured on 20 October, as if it had been written up at the latest by 15 September?

Foreman: Yes.

Question: Isn't that utterly appalling conduct for a solicitor to engage in?

Foreman: No. 

The Law Society appealed against the leniency of the penalty and in August 1994 the Court of Appeal struck her off. 

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
Editor Permission Required
You must have editing permission for this entry in order to post comments.