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

Movement at the station ... Judges messing with the priestly defendants ... Pell-mell ... Elaborate, if eye-glazing, events mark the arrival of the Apple Isle's new CJ ... Slow shuffle at the top of the Federales delayed ... Celebrity fee dispute goes feral ... Dogs allowed in chambers ... Barrister slapped for pro-Hamas Tweets ... India's no rush judgments regime ... Goings on with Theodora ... More >>

Politics Media Law Society


Appeasement ... Craven backdowns galore … Creative Australia – how to avoid “divisive debates” … Grovels and concealments follow the “Undercover Jew” fiasco … Suppression orders protecting Lattouf terminators … No waves at the Yarts Ministry … Preselection jeopardy for pro-Palestinian pollie … Justice Lee dabbles in “sentient citizenship” … Semites and antisemitism ... Read on ... 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

Rome is burning ... Giorgia Meloni's right-wing populist regime threatens judicial independence ... Moves to strip constitutional independence of La Magistratura ... Judges on the ramparts ... The Osama Almasri affair ... Silvana Olivetti reports ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


Live-streaming of court proceedings ... Mortimer CJ struggles with the good and bad ... Open justice is too "maleable" a concept ... More >> 

 

Justinian's Bloggers

London Calling ... Law n Order in Blighty ... King invites the King for State visit ... Grovels aplenty ... Magistrate's over does the "send him down" ... Musos strike an angry chord about AI encroachment ... Law shops protect the billable hour ... Floyd Alexander-Hunt files ... Read more >> 

"Creative Australia is an advocate for freedom of artistic expression and is not an adjudicator on the interpretation of art. However, the Board believes a prolonged and divisive debate about the 2026 selection outcome poses an unacceptable risk to public support for Australia's artistic community and could undermine our goal of bringing Australians together through art and creativity."

Statement from Creative Australia following its decision to cancel Khaled Sabsabi and curator Michael Dagostino as the creative team to represent Australia at the Venice Biennale 2026, February 13, 2025 ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Damien Carrick ... For 23 years Carrick has presented the Law Report on ABC Radio National ... An insight into the man behind the microphone ... Law and media ... Pursuit of the story ... Pressing topics ... Informative guests ... On The Couch ... Read more >> 


Justinian's archive

The Saints Go Marching In ... Cash cow has to claw its way back to the LCA's inner sanctum ... Stephen Estcourt cleans up in Mercury settlement ... Amex rides two horses in expiring guarantee cases ... Simmo bins the paperwork ... Attorneys General should not come from the solicitors' branch ... Goings On from February 9, 2009 ... 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.