Terence Goldberg of Turner Freeman Lawyers represented four individuals, ie the plaintiffs, in proceedings heard in the Supreme Court of NSW. Pursuant to those proceedings, Terry Goldberg misleads the Court by claiming in an Application for Assessment of Solicitor/Client Costs that he acted for the sixth defendant in such proceedings, when in fact that sixth defendant was unrepresented. Terence Goldberg then unlawfully sued that sixth defendant to pay the legal costs of his clients.
The sixth defendant, an association, was then wound up and its building sold to pay such costs with the substantial residual funds belonging to that association apparently making their way to a sham entity, via a Trust, with such sham entity being based at the home address of two long-time acquaintances of Terence Goldberg, ie Jon Adrian Lindsay and Miranda McCarthy (aka Mandy Miami), at 3/349 Bourke Street, Darlinghurst NSW 2010 (with both of those two long-time acquaintances of Terence Goldberg being members of the church). It has since been shown that Terence Goldberg had a direct hand in the setting up of both the said sham entity and the aforesaid Trust.
The above bears all the hallmarks of fraudulent activity (see section 192E of the Crimes Act 1900). The above also defied the only Order made by the Court in those proceedings which was that each party was to pay their own costs.
Significantly, the sixth defendant had accrued no costs, and as there was no Order made for one party to pay the costs of any other, Terence Goldberg was prohibited from claiming costs from any defendant, which he went on to do. In this matter, Terry Goldberg makes a myriad of misleading and conflicting statements in a number of various documents, all seemingly to his benefit.
The above has been made known to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner (the solicitor conduct overseer) and the Law Society of NSW, with both of those bodies turning a blind eye at all times.
Some would have you believe that the matter is complex, when, in fact, the matter is simplicity in itself. Terence Goldberg of Turner Freeman Lawyers could only have sued Enmore Spiritualist Church Incorporated for his legal costs if the church had been Turner Freeman’s client. The church was not Turner Freeman’s client.
As Terence Goldberg acted for the four plaintiffs in the matter and also named the church as the sixth defendant, therefore placing the church in opposition to the four plaintiffs, it does not take a legal mind to deduce that the church was not his client. Also, and which is also obvious to all and sundry, if the church were Terence Goldberg’s client, it would not (and could not) have been left as an unrepresented party in the said proceedings; which it was. Any suggestion that the church was Turner Freeman’s client is clearly absurd.
See below a selection of letters to and from John McKenzie, the Legal Services Commissioner. You will see that Mr McKenzie, like Terence Goldberg, also makes statements which are unable to be true. Click on the letters to view a pdf version.
A list of the Court documents involved as well as other pertinent documents relating to this matter can be found on this site’s other page by clicking on this link or by choosing ‘The Evidence’ in the menu. You will see that all Court documents demonstrate quite clearly that Terence Goldberg did not act for Enmore Spiritualist Church Incorporated in any capacity.
Terry Goldberg, in his affidavits of 24 and 25 November 2009
In a letter to Turner Freeman Lawyers, 4 November 2019
Monday, 4th November 2019
Mr Terence Goldberg
Turner Freeman Lawyers
Level 12, 160 Sussex Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Dear Mr Goldberg
Re: Supreme Court proceedings 2009/00291458-001
I refer to the Application for Assessment of Solicitor/Client Costs as filed with the Court by yourself on 23rd June 2010 in relation to the abovementioned Supreme Court proceedings. In such Application you state on multiple occasions that you acted for the Enmore Spiritualist Church Incorporated.
As you are well aware, the Enmore Spiritualist Church Incorporated was listed as the sixth defendant in the abovementioned Supreme Court proceedings. You are also well aware that the sixth defendant remains on the Court record as an unrepresented party, with no firm of solicitors acting on its behalf.
Given that you acted for the four plaintiffs in such proceedings, and given also that the sixth defendant was unrepresented in same, can you please explain to me your claim that you acted for the Enmore Spiritualist Church in such Application to the Court for assessment of your firm’s professional costs. As can be seen, the situation and your actual statement are distinctly dichotomous, as well as such scenario being a breach of Rule 7.25 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules which states that a law firm cannot act for both and opposing parties in any same Court proceedings.
Further, in that same document, you explicitly state that there were only five defendants, when in fact there were six.
You are also well aware that the premises of 2 London Street, Enmore, was sold in June 2011 for $965,000.00 in order to pay your claimed debt of $124,661.90, although documents state that your firm was in fact paid the sum of $188,303.60 (on 20th December 2012). Given other claimed and disputed debts against our now defunct church, the monies remaining should have been in the region of some $700,000.00.
On perusing the website of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, it is stated that in the financial year of 2016/2017, the remaining monies as belonging to our now defunct church were placed into a Trust, with such Trust having been set up by your firm.
Also, as per the same website, an amount in the region of $985,447.00 entered such Trust in that period. As can be plainly seen, this sum is far in excess of the remaining monies as belonging to the original entity.
Given the appearance of a distinct conflict of interest, are you able to explain your input in the creation of such Trust, and are you also able to explain the origins of the seeming excess of such funds?
At this point it is worthy of mention that your firm was in fact involved in the creation of two separate entities; one of which being the abovementioned Trust. Both of these said entities have been set up as charities with almost identical names, with the sole objective of the said Trust to provide funds to the second created entity. The second entity at this moment in time has no particular function, and holds little funds in its account, and a long-time acquaintance of yours, at the time of the second entity’s inception, was registered as the public officer of such.
The constitution of the original and now defunct entity provides that on the winding up of such that all assets belonging to it be provided to a likewise association or charity. It would appear that Turner Freeman therefore created likewise associations to receive those assets.
It remains pertinent that at the present moment in time, the ACNC website states that the abovementioned Trust now holds the amount of $517,980.00 in its account. The ACNC website also states that the said Trust had expenses of $492,307.00 in the financial year of 2016/2017. The cause of these expenses and where these funds went is presently unknown.
Also, and despite a number of various correspondences to you, the divergent statement that you acted for the sixth defendant (an unrepresented party) in Supreme Court proceedings when you acted for the four plaintiffs remains without any plausible or cogent explanation.
I also attach to this correspondence a previous letter to you of 15th November 2016 which relates directly to the above and which remains without any sort of reply from you or your firm.
Please let me know at your earliest convenience if any of the above is incorrect.
I copy this letter to various authorities, and I look forward to your swift response.
John McKenzie, NSW Legal Services Commissioner, 2 June 2015
In a letter from Symn Waters to John McKenzie, 31 August 2017
One of Terence Goldberg’s many untrue statements in an Application for Assessment of Solicitor/Client Costs, as filed with the Supreme Court on 23 June 2010
In a letter from Symn Waters to John McKenzie, 10 August 2017
John McKenzie, 7 August 2017
In a letter from Symn Waters to John McKenzie, 27 October 2016 No response was received