Search
This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian News

Delay update ... "Extraordinary and excessive" delay - by the litigants ... Contest on costs ... Getting to grips with Qld industrial law takes time ... What is a "worker"? ... What is an "injury"? ... Justice Jenni frigging around ... Slow grind for earnest Circuiteer ... From judges' associate Ginger Snatch ... Read more >>

 

Politics Media Law Society


The End Of The Affair ... Lord Moloch’s bid for more Fox News fans … The Wall Street Journal rallies the MAGA base …Will the old rogue abandon his journalists? … Is “bawdy” the right word here? … The Deep State plumbs the depths … John and Stanley Roth’s generosity to loving causes ... Read on >> 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

From the cutting room floor...Handsy Heydon goes to Perth ... Celebrity tour ... Conferenceville ... Dicey's job application speech from 2002 ... Other High Court judges mocked as "vegetables" ... Mason CJ ridiculed ... Speech bowdlerised for public consumption ... Courage of conviction MIA ... From our National Affairs Correspondent ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


 

 

Justinian's Bloggers

London Calling ... Sizzling in the Old Dart ... Story of the complaining law graduate ... Tattle Life brought to book ... Beckham family feud over royal gong ... Floyd Alexander-Hunt's postcard ... Read more >> 

"Absolutely."

Attorney General Michelle Rowland's reply when asked whether she had confidence in Paul Brereton, commissioner of the National Corruption Concealment Commission ... In 2024 Brereton was found to have engaged in misconduct following a conflicted decision to reject further robo-debt investigations ... Australian Financial Review, July 24, 2025  Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Tootsies with Planet Janet ... Water Softener and the Planet ... Further details of the width and depth of their relationship ... Chief Justice of the ACT grants Justinian's application for access to more documents ... A barrage of text messages and phone calls throughout the Drumgold investigation ... Collated reporting ... Read more >> 


Justinian's archive

Being chased by a dog called Rhetoric ... Justice Virginia Bell on rhetorical devices and barristering ... It seems to be a male thing ... Distractions from the truth ... Tulkinghorn asks, where would the bar be without bad rhetoric? ... September 14, 2012 ... Read more >> 


 

 

« Haines blasts Temby | Main | Some good, some turnips »
Saturday
Jan012000

Rosenblum v Foreman

From Justinian's archive ... March 1995 ... When Rupert Rosenblum went to court over a missing house ... Memories of Carol Foreman and her backdated document ... Rocking the foundations of the admin of justice 

Well known Sydney solicitor Rupert Rosenblum is suing his former lover Carol Foreman in the Equity Division of the NSW Supreme Court.

He is seeking to recover about $400,000 which he claims Foreman owes him as a debt, or alternatively under the provisions of the De Facto Relationships Act.

Foreman has spent a good deal of her recent time travelling abroad, however it is expected that she will defend the action.

Rosenblum alleges that he is owed money for his equitable interest in a house that they jointly rebuilt, and which she subsequently sold.

He is also seeking to recover other money that he allegedly provided to her after she was sacked from Clayton Utz and while she was establishing Carol Foreman & Associates.

In October 1993 the Legal Profession Disciplinary Tribunal fined Foreman $20,000 after finding that she had fabricated time sheets at Clayton Utz and misled the Family Court of Australia.

The tribunal used strong words about her – deceitful, disgraceful, evasive, defensive, inappropriate, unsatisfactory and lacking proper contrition. She was also found to have struck at the very foundations of the court system and the administration of justice.

In relation to the constructed time sheet, the transcript shows that Foreman gave this piece of enlightening evidence:

Question: But what you sought to do was let a document go to court in an answer to a subpoena, which had been manufactured on 20 October, as if it had been written up at the latest by 15 September?

Foreman: Yes.

Question: Isn't that utterly appalling conduct for a solicitor to engage in?

Foreman: No. 

The Law Society appealed against the leniency of the penalty and in August 1994 the Court of Appeal struck her off. 

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
Editor Permission Required
You must have editing permission for this entry in order to post comments.