Two Canberra lawyers tried to deter former partner from $500k: court

In short:

The Supreme Court has found two Canberra lawyers tried to deter a former partner from pursuing contractual entitlements.

Erin Taylor successfully argued she was owed a refund or buyback of shares she had bought in the law firm.

What's next?

The court is set to issue orders and determine costs at a later date.

Two Canberra lawyers took active steps to deter a former partner from pursuing $500,000 owed to her following both a bitter personal and professional relationship breakdown, a court has found.

Erin Taylor took Aulich Civil Law partners Benjamin Aulich and Peter Woodhouse to the ACT Supreme Court, seeking $500,000 she paid to buy 25 per cent of the civil law firm's shares in 2019.

She claimed she was contractually owed a refund or buyback of the shares because she left the firm within five years.

In a decision published this month, Acting Justice Audrey Balla found Mr Woodhouse and Mr Aulich "embarked on a campaign" to deter Ms Taylor from pursuing her contractual entitlements.

Acting Justice Balla found the pair "declined to engage with Ms Taylor's repeated direct queries about how and when the money would be paid".

That included Mr Woodhouse blocking Ms Taylor from contacting him on his mobile phone and later deciding to block Ms Taylor from sending any more emails to the firm.

Mr Woodhouse sent an internal message saying Ms Taylor was "not sending anything productive. Just being a c***".

The message went on to say: 

"I think we'd all be better off if she just f***s off and leaves us alone".

Acting Justice Balla also found Mr Woodhouse and Mr Aulich "deliberately delayed paying Ms Taylor her leave entitlements as part of their strategy to ignore her claims and deter her from pursuing the claim for the share buyback".

Breakdown of personal relationship

Mr Woodhouse placed the firm into voluntary administration in September 2024, in what acting Justice Balla found was a decision made for himself and Mr Aulich to "obtain an advantage in this litigation".

"Their decisions were motivated to achieve unfairness,"

Justice Balla said.

That conduct followed a breakdown in a more than five-year personal relationship between Ms Taylor and Mr Aulich, which was followed by the professional relationship between the three partners becoming "strained".

According to the decision, a meeting in a cafe about workloads between Ms Taylor and Mr Aulich in February 2024 ended abruptly, with Mr Aulich telling Ms Taylor to "get f***ed and f*** off" while he raised his middle finger at her.

"He walked off with his middle finger raised over his shoulder,"

the decision said.

"This occurred in front of a colleague and a client. Mr Aulich agreed in cross-examination that he had publicly humiliated Ms Taylor."

Acting Justice Balla found Mr Woodhouse and Mr Aulich breached an agreement by failing to purchase the $500,000 shares.

"It should have been paid by one month after Ms Taylor's final day," the decision said.

She also found Mr Aulich and Mr Woodhouse engaged in oppressive conduct and breached statutory and fiduciary obligations.

The court is set to issue orders and determine costs at a later date.