Michael Vassili Barristers & Solicitors

Location :

Shop 3-4/28 Patrick St, Blacktown NSW 2148
Added by Jopie, at 04 February 2021

Add email
Add business description
Add Social Media
Add Products and Services

• Anonymous

  20 July 2021

  Michael & the team have played an instrumental part in my families legal matters spanning a number of years. Honest, transparent, reliable, empathetic and incredibly professional - the key ingredients that has enabled me to build a relationship / partnership with Michael and the team. I will not think twice about reaching out to the team as they have delivered on fair results without the “sharky” approach in comparison to other firms! Special mention to Saira in the team who went above and beyond with my conveyancing matters. Again, well done and thank you to Michael and the team!
  Nitin & Kamla.

  response / report this review
• Anonymous

  28 June 2021

  There is no need for me to make any disparaging comments, after disputing Michael’s costs for deserting me half way through my case, he decided to be spiteful and take the matter to the Supreme Court to chase his costs. Below are just some comments the Judge had made on the matter due to character limits… After reading this, ask yourself, would you still trust your case with this man?
  • I found the costs were excessive.
  • I found the Costs Applicant’s many in -house conferences and the decision to have three solicitors on the file resulted in regular duplication of work and a failure to successfully advise the Costs Respondent of the difficulties in his claim before the FWC.
  • The Costs Respondent received different advice at different times from different solicitors.
  • On the information before me, the Costs Applicant revised the July Agreement in the November Agreement to significantly reduce the estimated costs. It is unclear why the Costs Applicant took this course given proceedings in the Federal Court were flagged and the proceedings in the FWC were still on foot.
  • The total costs claimed by the Costs Applicant are in excess of the November Agreement which was stated to be a revised agreement. The November Agreement does not state that the total costs estimate was in addition to the amounts contained in the July Agreement. The Costs Applicant led the Costs Respondent to have a different expectation as to the costs that would be incurred in his matter. The fact the Costs Respondent instructed the Costs Applicant following receipt of the July Agreement where the costs estimate was higher, does not mean that the Costs Applicant can rely on that to satisfy its disclosure obligations. The Costs Respondent was unemployed and impecunious. The Act sets out disclosure requirements to enable clients to arrange their affairs and to make decisions in their legal matters that are within their financial capabilities. By advising the Costs Respondent that the litigation costs were likely to be much lower than originally contemplated and for this then not to be the case, it follows that disclosure has not been made. The November Agreement that replaced the July Agreement is void and the costs are to be assessed pursuant to s172 on the basis the costs are no more than fair and reasonable in all the circumstances and that in particular are proportionately and reasonably incurred and are proportionate and reasonable in amount.
  • It is difficult to understand on what basis the Cost Applicant felt confident to recommend that the Costs Respondent apply for a stay.
  • While the Costs Applicant spoke regularly with counsel and charged the Costs Respondent for those conversations, no written advice was sought from counsel to be given to the Costs Respondent.
  • On the information before me there was no basis for the Costs Applicant to seek costs for any changes to the mediation date.
  • I accept that the Costs Applicant failed to take notice of the dates the Costs Respondent was absent from Sydney despite the Costs Respondent providing that information in a timely fashion. I did not accept the Costs Applicant ‘s advice to the Costs Respondent that it was not possible to inform the Registrar that the proposed dates were not suitable. In addition, I have not received an explanation as to why the Costs Applicant took no steps to inform the Court and the other side that the Costs Respondent was unavailable to attend, until two days prior to the mediation date.
  • I accept that there was duplication in the work undertaken and I have reduced the costs claimed as set out below.
  • The Costs Applicant did not provide the Costs Respondent with a letter informing him of the correspondence and its implications.
  • The costs claimed by the Costs Applicant to draft the Statement of Claim and the amount charged by counsel for the same work, were both excessive given that the document was not complex.
  • As the Costs Applicant did not make disclosure, the Costs Applicant is to be liable for the costs of the assessment.

  response / report this review
• Anonymous

  28 June 2021

  Nick Blaker has helped our family win our case. He remained positive the entire time and confident. He was very informative, respectful and guided as in each step. I highly recommend this law firm. Thank you very much Nick, Michael and associates who helped us!

  response / report this review
• Anonymous

  23 February 2021

  Best lawyers in western Sydney. Friendly staff and easy to communicate with.

  response / report this review
• Anonymous

  11 February 2021

  Michael vassili IS MY HEROOOOO HE IS THE BEST MAN HELPED ME ALOT. IM CURRENTLY IN OVERSEAS AS SOON AS I GETBACK TO THE AREA I WILL VISIT HIM. THANK YOU SO MUCH MICHAEL GOD BLESS YOU..

  response / report this review