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

Judicial shockers ... The justice business ... Appeal admonitions ... Sore bottoms for those lower down the chain of command ... Nationwide lapses ... Perfection proves elusive ... Latest from Ginger Snatch ... Read more ...

Politics Media Law Society


Journalism's new poster boy ... Our Julian's long and winding road … Legal quagmire … Espionage Act versus prior restraint of the press … The born-again "journalist" who hates journalism … Establishing a treacherous precedent … Not letting shortcomings swamp the positives ... Read on ... 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

It's too late for the thylacine ... Procrustes closely analyses recent Justinian reports ... The Ippster and Stella Liebeck ... Tort law reform that went beyond the Pale ... In Tassie, no one is allowed to speak for the forests ... Standing up against State rule of the trees ... Where's Syd Shea when you need him? ... Read more ... 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


Vic's Bar ... Oral history ... Jeff Sher and his famous cases ... More >>

Justinian's Bloggers

Courtroom capers ... Federal Court's digital hiccups ... Principal Registrar in home run ... Pronunciation requirements for names and pre-nominate ... Elocution audit ... Common law shuffle in New South Wales ... Vicki Mole reports ... Read more ... 

"I think it's madness to change it. If you walked into a McDonald's hamburger restaurant and they started serving you seafood, you'd be very confused if you were a customer."

Newington College old boy Peter Thomas arguing against the school admitting female students ... Reported in Guardian Australia, June 21, 2024 ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

The election season ... The case for compulsory voting ... Pity the Brits, French and Americans where politicians have to "get out the vote" ... Nathan Twibill on the advantages of the "median voter" strategy ... Vote early, vote often ... Read more ... 


Justinian's archive

Self-promotion ... Academics scramble to peddle influence with High Court judges ... Government seeks new role for s.18C ... Twenty-one years later, the cheque arrives ... Would you eat at a cafe owned by a Cabinet minister? ... From Justinian's Archive, October 27, 2014 ... 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.