Paul Fishlock case rumbles on as Y&R rejects independent assessment of legal fees
The ongoing legal stoush between Paul Fishlock and Y&R Brands is set to drag into a fourth year after the WPP-backed group refused an external assessment of how much it should pay of his legal fees.
Last year Fishlock won a Supreme Court ruling for unfair dismissal against Y&R Brands after he was squeezed out of his role as executive creative director of the now defunct Campaign Palace in 2011. He was awarded $300,000 in damages by the court, with Y&R, the parent company of the Palace, ordered to pay his legal costs.
In a statement GPY&R COO Jason Buckley said: “The parties are participating in the usual process for verifying legal/solicitor costs. There is a normal process that the parties are working through and we are at the beginning of it. As this is private, it is not appropriate that any further comment be made.”
It is understood Fishlock beleives he has racked up around $750,000 in legal fees during the litigation.
In the latest instalment of the ongoing court saga, the bill of costs prepared by an external costs consultant, appointed by Fishlock’s legal team, has been rejected by Y&R who countered with a figure Fishlock has described as “so lowball it’s laughable”.
Fishlock told Mumbrella: “I can only assume it’s part of a strategy to send a message to the industry that if you litigate with WPP you’re in for a world a pain. But I wonder what other messages it’s also sending.”
As a result of the bill of costs being rejected the Supreme Court is required to appoint its own assessor who will determine how much the agency must pay for Fishlock’s legal team.
The court case revealed email chains between Y&R executives including Hamish McLennan, Russel Howcroft and Y&R Global CCO Tony Granger which revealed Y&R management had been searching for a national lead to replace Fishlock after the departure of the Sydney creative director in 2010.
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Fishlock after a week in court in February last year, and ordered Y&R to pay the majority of Fishlock’s legal costs, however did not specify the amount.
Fishlock now manages Behaviour Change Partners which he launched in 2012.
Miranda Ward
(Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy)
Paul is a man of immense character and I admire his persistence and I hope he holds them to the penny.
User ID not verified.
you know, it’s really disappointing that nobody seems to be up in arms about this.
rent a mob comes out every time there’s a news ltd story, we get 50 comments about Schapelle Corby and 100 about street fund raising but nobody wants to comment on a situation where
– one of the biggest advertising employers in this country and the world absolutely stiffs a senior leader, truly one of the good guys in the market with an outstanding legacy
– gets humiliated and found guilty in court and ordered to pay damages and immense costs
– thumbs it’s nose at the court judgement and the leader it stiffed and in bloody minded fashion decides to withold the money it’s owed
I have no skin in this game – I know and have worked with both parties over the years. But I find WPP’s behaviour awful and am stunned that nobody else on this forum appears to care
User ID not verified.
I’m not sure why they’re estimating the costs??!!? Aren’t the legal costs….the ACTUAL legal costs.
User ID not verified.
Even if you win – you lose. By my recent court experience I was out of pocket by around 30% of my legal fees – in a clear open and shut case. The court awards costs – but costs have to be ‘taxed” – a process which has them bench-marked for reasonableness. Paul’s settlement of $300K will probably be soaked up by the amount of costs that will not be passed as reasonable. Rule number 1 – only lawyers win if you litigate. Sorry Paul.
User ID not verified.
Confused 5:16 makes the same (perfectly reasonable) assumption I made at the start of this farce: that if you win a case and are awarded costs the other party pays your costs. If only it was that simple. Turns out, even having been awarded ‘indemnity costs’ by the Supreme Court, due to the conduct of the defendant, there is still a big gap between actual costs and recovered costs. In this case, possibly six figures, not including the interest on carrying a mortgage-size debt to stay in the game and keep legal meters on both sides ticking over Jarndyce and Jarndyce style. While Mumbrella is hardly the forum for advocating legal reform, it is urgently needed. Until the scales of justice no longer tip in favour of Goliath’s deep pockets, the ability of his victims to ‘do the right thing’ will remain compromised.
User ID not verified.
Sorry to hear that Paul. It really does pander to those with the deeper pockets. This only affirms my position – the law is an ass.
User ID not verified.