Personal Service

Prompt Dispute Resolution

As a small firm McDonald Murholme offers a personal service, which larger firms are often unable to provide due to their size and the extent of delegation of work within their practice.  Personal service in legal practice can be very important.

In most legal disputes the best service to a client is an early resolution.  An immediate attempt to resolve the problem is best achieved through prompt and direct negotiations.  This requires prompt personal service for which McDonald Murholme will usually offer a “no-win-no-fee” fixed cost agreement.

The best time for an employment law client to approach McDonald Murholme is at the first sign of the problem arising and before the dismissal occurs.  Problems of workplace bullying and harassment, and unjustified warnings and punitive performance management are most common.  McDonald Murholme can usually arrange the first appointment within 24 hours.  This is often necessary where an employee is called to a meeting in which a dismissal will occur.

By early intervention McDonald Murholme can often prevent or delay a dismissal. Where that is not possible a fair departure package can often be agreed. The employee can leave on more acceptable terms without the stigma of a dismissal or empty-handed. When it is pointed out to most employers that if they fail to make a fair and proper termination payment to an employee they face the rigours of a costly and unnecessary court case the outcome of which they cannot control, a private and confidential settlement presents as a desirable alternative.  Both parties save substantial legal costs, especially the employer who usually has a larger bill and often ends up paying for the employee as well. 

About half of the clients who face termination of employment and engage McDonald Murholme receive a termination package within a few weeks of their problem arising.  This is without the need for court proceedings. 

However, clients are assured that when negotiation fails they can rely on the firm to fully support them in taking legal proceedings.

An example of the importance of personal service and ongoing support to a client is IFF v Hoff. 

In that case, McDonald Murholme’s client, Ms Hoff’s position was made redundant but Ms Hoff was sacked for performance reasons.  In the Magistrates’ Court,  Ms Hoff won $100,000 plus interest and legal costs as redundancy.  The unsuccessful employer, IFF (a US based multinational), appealed against the decision to the Supreme Court. 

For the Appeal each party engaged an experienced team of barristers including a Queen’s Counsel.  This is usually necessary in a Supreme Court matter.  Unfortunately, at the end of the first day of the hearing of the Appeal, Hoff’s barrister (QC) advised her that she would lose because her case was unwinnable, a “train wreck”.  Until then, Hoff expected to win the Appeal. 

Unwilling to concede the prospective loss, McDonald Murholme immediately replaced Hoff’s barristers.  The next day, Alan McDonald was required to personally step in, address the Court and present the legal submissions for Hoff.  Hoff won the Appeal (see [2008] VSC 56 ). 

Had Hoff lost the Appeal, she would have been more than $250,000 out of pocket – refunding the $100,000 redundancy to IFF with interest and paying legal costs to the other party’s lawyers (estimated at $150,000).  IFF had engaged one of Melbourne’s largest law firms. 

Alan McDonald was able to provide personal service because he knew the client and her case well and was experienced in the area of employment law as both a solicitor and a barrister. 

Another example is Blagojevch’s case.  McDonald Murholme represented Blagojevch in what started out as a straightforward unfair dismissal claim in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.  The employer acted dishonestly in the presentation of its evidence.  McDonald Murholme needed to engage a forensic fingerprinting expert to prove that a written warning allegedly given to Blagojevch was fabricated – a most unusual occurrence.  In the result, Blagojevch won his claim for compensation for unfair dismissal. 

In the unusual circumstances of the case, McDonald Murholme sought legal costs on behalf of Blagojevch.  The law at the time generally provided for parties to pay their own costs.  McDonald Murholme argued that this was an exceptional case.  Deputy President Watson rejected the claim for costs.  Blagojevch appealed to a full-bench of the Industrial Relations Commission (three members).  The Bench, headed by the President, again rejected the claim for costs. 

Believing the Commission to be in error, McDonald Murholme took the matter further to the High Court, which remitted it to the Federal Court.  As a necessary personal service, Alan McDonald appeared as Counsel on behalf of Blagojevch on a pro bono basis in the Federal Court.  Finally, the Federal Court held that the Commission was in error in law not to award costs.  Blagojevch ultimately received a contribution towards his legal costs in the AIRC (see Blagojevch v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] FCA 483