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

Judicial shockers ... Latest from the trouble prone Queensland branch of the Federales ... Administrative law upsets ... Sandy Street overturned ... On the level in Canberra ... Missing aged care accountant ... Law shop managing director skewered ... Ginger Snatch reports from courtrooms around the nation ... Read more >> 

Politics Media Law Society


Polly gets a cracker ... The Parrot falls from his bully pulpit … Performances … The end of the Wharf Revue … Bruce McClintock on stage at The Onion Club … Freaks on the loose in Washington ... Read on ... 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

It's Hitlerish ... Reelection of a charlatan ... Republicans take popular vote for the first time in 20 years ... Amnesia ... Trashing a democracy ... Trump and his team of troubled men ... Mainstream media wilts in the eye of the storm ... Depravity, greed and revenge are the new normal ... Roger Fitch files from Washington ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


The life, loves, triumphs and disappointments of Frosty Tom Hughes ... 1923-2024 ... More >> 

Justinian's Bloggers

A trial for France ... French teacher beheaded after showing caricatures of Mohammed to the class ... Young student's false claim ends in tragedy ... Misinformation takes off on social media ... Media storm ... Religion infiltrates public life ... Trials unfold ... Hugh Vuillier reports ... Read more >> 

"Over many years, certain journalists employed by Nine (formerly Fairfax) newspapers have been resentful of our client’s prominence as a commentator on many political and cultural issues, and the malicious and concocted allegations giving rise to the imputations constitute a concerted attempt to destroy our client’s reputation. 

Following the Sydney Morning Herald's exposure ... Mark O'Brien, Alan Jones' solicitor, December 12, 2023  ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

The great interceptor ... Rugby League ... Dennis Tutty and the try he shouldn't have scored ... Case that changed the face of professional sport ... Growth of the player associations, courtesy of the Barwick High Court ... Free kick ... Restraint of trade ... Braham Dabscheck comments ... Read more ... 


Justinian's archive

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 ... 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.