A Godsend twice over and Louis Voumard, Victoria’s authority on property law

Excerpted from a Life in the Law by Nimal Wikramanayake

When I took up residence in Equity Chambers I would often visit my friends on the third floor. During my visits, I saw a little old man wearing a crumpled suit and he always had a cigarette hanging out of the corner of his mouth. For a couple of months I would stop and chat to this little old man. I thought he was the caretaker and I felt extremely sorry for him because he looked so lost and lonely. A delightful little friendship slowly built up and whenever I went up to the third floor I would see this little old man pottering around in one of my friends’ rooms.

One day, out of the blue, he looked at me and said, “My boy, I don’t think we’ve been introduced to each other.” I stuck my hand out and said, “I am Nimal Wikramanayake.” With a twinkle in his eye the old man said, “I am Louis Voumard.”

In 1973, property law work and conveyancing were the bread and butter of every solicitor in Victoria before successive governments in their wisdom decided to take conveyancing work away from solicitors and hand it to conveyancers. What an absolute travesty of justice!

Louis Voumard was the leader in the property field and his name was a household word in Australia. He was the son of Swiss migrants who had settled in Shepparton. They ran a milk bar. Their son was born in 1898 and they sent him down to Melbourne to study Law. He had an inauspicious beginning in the legal profession.

In the mid 1930s he had a bright idea. He would write a book on “The Sale of Land” and become an expert in property law. He devoured T Cyprian Williams’ classic work A Treatise On the Law of Vendor and Purchaser of Real Estate in more ways than one. He took large quantities of Cyprian Williams’ book and incorporated it into his work. He called his work Voumard: The Sale of Land in Victoria and it was published in 1939. This work was, I believe, one of the first of its kind in Australia and was soon called “The Bible”

I looked aghast at him and said, “You are Louis Voumard? The great Louis Voumard?”

The little old man smiled, his eyes twinkled and he said, “Yes’ I spluttered. “The great Louis Voumard?”

His eyes twinkled again and he said, “Yes, my boy.”

That was the beginning of a short but magnificent friendship. He was the only one in this great country of ours who gave me a helping hand. Over the next few months I would spend every single afternoon in his room, when I was not, on rare occasions, in court. He was always hard at work. When I walked into his room, he would look up at me with that gentle smile of his and say, “My boy, have you brought your fee with you?” and I would reply, “Can I put it on the slate?” and he would laughingly say, “Yes.”

We would then sit down and discuss art, music, politics and philosophy. This was not only refreshing but stimulating, because my conversation with my Australian barrister friends was limited to Aussie Rules football, which I knew nothing about, and cricket.

Louis was the most unusual man I have ever met. At that time he had a rival, Keith Aiken QC. Voumard never forgot his humble country roots and was known – even though he became a silk later in life and a giant in the legal profession – for the abominably low fees he charged. I have a clear recollection of something that occurred when I was his junior in a matter of advice shortly before he died. I sent a bill of $30 for my fees and the solicitor sent me a cheque for $20, saying that $30 was the fee that Lou had charged in the matter. Lou told me that he charged low fees, firstly because he did not need the money, and secondly, poor people should be ablA Godsend twice over and Louis Voumard, Victoria’s authority on property lawe to have access to his knowledge. At the time of Lou’s death in 1974, Keith Aiken was charging hundreds of dollars for an advice on law matters.

Then the first bombshell struck. Pat Gorman died and we were all in mourning for the great man. “Dashing” Des Whelan QC, who shared chambers with Pat Gorman, took over his magnificent room. Des Whelan was the leader of the Personal Injuries Bar, and later Chief Judge of the County Court. He was the father of a young barrister called Simon Whelan who came to the Bar some years later, took silk, was later appointed to the Supreme Court and later still to the Court of Appeal. Simon is a very gentle man and an exceptionally fine judge.

On August 15, 1973, I received an invitation from Des Whelan to come up to his chambers to celebrate the 75th birthday of Louis Voumard. We all went up to Des Whelan’s room that afternoon to felicitate dear, sweet Louis Voumard. I told Louis, “I know another great man whose birthday fell on August 15 and he replied, “Yes, Napoleon Bonaparte.’ Lou was born 119 years after Napoleon.

Some months later I when chatting with Lou in his room, he looked up and said, “My boy, I understand that you are helping Sonny with his book. Would you like to help me with my work? If you help me with my work you can take it over if anything happens to me. You will be made.” I was delighted and grabbed the opportunity with both hands. I then gave Sonny the sad news that I would not be working on his book but would be helping Lou with his work.

In the meantime Lou gave me a copy of his work. I did not dare tell Lou that I knew nothing about property law. At Cambridge, Property Law I was studied in the second year of the Law Tripos, and Property Law II was studied in the third year. In my second year, I studied International Law in preference to Property Law and in my third year I studied Roman-Dutch law in preference to Property Law as Roman-Dutch law was the law of Ceylon.

In Ceylon, although my master had a large property law practice, I did property law only during the six months that I was reading with him. After that I did not look at a property law brief. So when Lou asked me to help him with his work, I had not seen Contract for the Sale of Land in Victoria. I did not know what a defect of title was nor did I know what requisitions on title were. In fact, I knew nothing about property law.

I opened Lou’s work and could not understand a word of it. But over the next couple of months, I found some new authorities for him and my little friend was delighted. When my parents came out to Australia in December 1973 I invited Lou home to meet them. He drove up in his old Wolseley motor car with his paraplegic daughter, Susan. Susan was the cross Lou had had to bear for over 30 years.She had been a nurse and had been driving to Lou’s holiday home at Mt Martha many years earlier when a drunken driver swerved across the road, smashed her car, smashed her body and destroyed her life.

Noel Rice

It was the month of September 1973 and the barristers on the four big lists had a surfeit of work. Sometimes they had multiple briefs every day. I would spend most of my time twiddling my thumbs and listening to my neighbours ,Paul Bennett, who was on Foley’s list, and Paul McPhee, who was on Spur’s list, discussing the briefs they had and the income they had earned that year. Sad to say, both my dear friends are now dead. Paul Bennett proudly declared that he had earned $16,300 that year and McPhee triumphantly remarked that he had earned $17,000. I totaled up my fees and found that I had earned less than $5,000 for the 11 months of that year.

Then I had a stroke of luck in October 1973 in the shape of John McCartney and Noel Rice, the principal of the firm of Anderson, Rice and Nicol. Noel Rice was the solicitor who acted for the RACV Insurance Company in most of their motor car collision cases or what we commonly called “crash and bash” in the Magistrates’ Court. He was unable to find a barrister and Calnin telephoned me to ask whether I could go down and do a “crash and bash” at St Kilda.

Noel Rice as the RACV solicitor always acted for defendant motorists. In this particular instance he had paid in 80 per cent of the claim into court. This is what is called “a payment into court”. It is open to a defendant in a civil claim for money to pay what he or she thinks is what the complainant/plaintiff will receive by way of judgment. If the successful complainant/plaintiff receives judgment for less than the money paid into court by the defendant’s solicitor, the complainant/plaintiff is required to pay the defendant’s costs incurred in defending the proceeding.

The magistrate Kevin O’Connor took a liking to me and I managed to have my client found 60 per cent negligent and the other party 40 per cent negligent. I beat the payment into court by 20 per cent so the complainant had to pay the costs my client incurred in defending the proceedings. When I returned to chambers I gave Noel Rice the good news and he was delighted.

I heard nothing from him for about two weeks when he rang me up without going through Calnin and briefed me in another “crash and bash” He had paid in his usual 80 per cent and I got him an award of 60 per cent. This result led to a long and fruitful relationship over the next four years. He then started briefing me, first with one brief a week, and then two and soon I was receiving three briefs from him a week.

In December 1973, our happy chamber relationship came to a grinding halt. Patkin, Bennett and McPhee, having signed the Bar Roll in March 1971, were all offered rooms in Owen Dixon Chambers. However, the Victorian Bar had taken the fourth floor of Equity Chambers. I was given the choice of the rooms on the fourth floor so I took a large room looking out on to Bourke Street.

In March 1974 a new list was formed and a number of barristers on the new list – Muir’s – joined me on the fourth floor of Equity Chambers. A young barrister on our floor, Ian Sutherland, was double-booked and offered me a brief in the Magistrates’ Court. I grabbed it with both hands. It was from one of the leading solicitor’s firms in Melbourne – Corrs.

A young solicitor from that firm, Christopher Wren, came along with the client, a ruddy-faced little Jewish man. Yes, his Jewishness is relevant because he was discriminating against me because of my colour. His face was a feature when he saw me. He asked me what I knew about the law. I pointed to my certificate hanging on the wall and told him that I took a Second-Class Honours at Cambridge University and had qualified as a barrister in England in 1959, some 15 years before.

I studied his complaint, which disclosed that his neighbour had bulldozed his boundary wall with a tractor. The claim had been brought in negligence. I told Chris that it would have been preferable if it had been brought in trespass because it was strict liability. He would only have to prove that his neighbour bulldozed his fence, but in negligence he would have to prove a duty of care on the part of the neighbour.

The client started screaming and yelling at me at the top of his voice: “What the hell are you talking about? Trespass, negligence, what the hell does it matter? My fence has been demolished. You are just like my neighbour. You don’t know what you’re doing’

By this time I had had enough. Corrs may be the one of the biggest firms in Melbourne and I needed them. I was only two years at the Bar and no one in his right mind would insult a client of Corrs, but I was not going to put up with this nasty little racist man. I picked up the brief and threw it at him, saying, “Take your brief and bugger off.” I never got another brief from Corrs.

In January, we spent a happy day with Louis Voumard at his holiday home in Mt Martha. I am proud to say that I am one of the few members of the Victorian Bar who has been to Lou’s holiday home in Mt Martha and to his home in Kew. The months then flew by and I remember that fateful day – Thursday, May 2, 1974. We were chatting in his room that afternoon when the evening shadows slowly closed in, and we went on chatting until about seven at night. Lou drew me aside and told me, “My boy, this book is killing me.” He added, “I am very, very tired” We said our goodbyes and he left – and I was never to see him again.

On Friday morning something made me go down to see Lou. I found his room closed with a notice saying that he was ill and that he would not be coming in that day. I telephoned his home and Susan answered the phone. She told me, “Dad walked down to see his doctor in the High Street. He was having a pain in his chest and thought he had better see his doctor about it.” The silly old man had walked a mile to see his doctor when he was obviously having a heart attack.

I went into work on Monday morning and was reading The Age newspaper when the telephone rang. It was my friend Ronny de Kretser. He said, “Nimal, have you seen today’s papers?”

“Yes, but I’ve been reading the sports page”

He told me to turn to page two. I did so, and found there a huge appreciation of the life of the late Mr Louis Voumard who had died the previous Saturday, May 4. I sat there stunned. I was in a state of shock: my whole world had collapsed around me. The only dear friend I had known and would ever know in Australia had died. Who was going to help me? Whom could I turn to? I put the phone down, put my hands on my head and sat there sobbing softly. What was to become of me?

But then, as Benny Hill was wont to say, “The pickled pinger of pate intervened.” During the previous year in Equity Chambers and my close friendship with my dear friend Lou, I had also become very friendly with his secretary, Kathy Scheinman. Dear sweet Kathy was responsible for my second real break at the Victorian Bar, Noel Rice having been the first. She wrote off to the powers-that-be at Law Book Company and told them that a young man had been helping Louis Voumard with his book when he died.

The managing director, Tony Lees, wrote to me and asked whether I could take over writing the work. Tony then flew down to Melbourne, interviewed me and retained me to write “THE BOOK” I was terrified. I knew nothing about the sale of land, let alone land law.

I decided to take a chance and do the work. I telephoned my friend, John Rutherford, who was a solicitor at Cook and Cussen. He came down to see me with a contract for the sale of land and took me through the essential requirements of a contract. He also explained to me the purpose of requisitions on title and spent a couple of hours initiating me in the mysteries of land law.

This is the truth. Well, what was I to do with Voumard? I read Voumard from cover to cover 40 times during the next four years. I remember going to Italy for a holiday in 1977 and I read Voumard going over on the plane once, then read it again coming back on the plane.

The editing of the third edition of this work was in the hands of Sir Alistair Adam. I gave Sir Alistair what I thought were the relevant authorities. My knowledge of property law was non-existent, despite my having read this work so many times. As a result of my lack of knowledge, I omitted to give Sir Alistair the controversial decision of the House of Lords on part performance – The case of Steadman v. Steadman. Ross Sundberg QC reviewed this third edition and crucified my work. I was heartbroken.

(To be continued)