EA sued for allegedly failing to take care of boss’s dog

An executive assistant has been sued by her boss for an alleged failure to properly care for his dog while he was on holiday.

Principal solicitor and sole director of Green & Associates, Dominic Green, accused his former executive assistant (EA) of numerous employment agreement breaches, including a failure to take care of his dog “in the manner allegedly agreed” while he was on holiday.

The EA also allegedly failed to acceptably have solicitors, paralegals, and staff “hold the fort” while Green was gone; failed to satisfactorily manage his office renovations; and used working hours for personal matters.

The more serious allegations included the EA purporting to give legal advice when she was not qualified, financial misappropriation, and “sabotaging” the firm by assisting an employee with a compensation claim for an injury it alleged occurred in a personal capacity.

Green & Associates Solicitors claimed damages for $267,260.34, of which $29,997.65 was for the alleged financial misappropriation.

Another $20,941 was claimed in damages for alleged breaches of terms of agreements from when the firm represented the EA in relation to proceedings brought or threatened against her by third parties.

The firm has also named the EA’s spouse or partner in the proceedings but pleaded no cause of action against him. Instead, it sought an order granting the firm leave to issue a writ of execution in respect of a property they jointly own if its claims are successful.

A defence has yet to be filed, and Justice Kate Williams noted “no meaningful view” has been reached as to the strength of the case.

The EA applied for security of costs in the sum of $300,000, adducing evidence that the firm has paid-up capital of $1, does not own real property, and has an outstanding tax liability of $320,884.39.

Evidence was also adduced of a CreditorWatch report that showed Green & Associates Solicitors made 27 credit inquiries in the past five years, 13 of which were made in the last 12 months.

In response to a request for financial records, Green made a number of claims about the firm’s and his personal finances, including that he owned three BMW M-series vehicles with a value that exceeded the security amount sought, and his “significant cash” at the bank.

On the ATO debt, Green claimed the CreditorWatch report was “a deemed assessment issued in error, on the basis of an inability to lodge for several legitimate reasons”. Green said the updated returns have been lodged and the balance should now be very small or nil.

His letter did not enclose primary documents substantiating any of the statements, or any other records of the kind sought by the defendants.

Green did refer to a “preliminary valuation [which] places the value of the plaintiff at somewhere between $1 [million] and $5 [million]”.

However, Green referenced a “short email” he received from an organisation called Aspire that set out a “theoretical valuation range” of between $978,000 and $2,445,000, based on assumptions about the firm’s annual turnovers for two years and a “broad rule-of-thumb [that] small privately owned Australian law firms tend to transact within a 0.5x to 3x multiple of annual turnover”.

Although he said he was disputing the outstanding tax liability, Justice Williams noted no such evidence was adduced.

The court also rejected the submission the Taxation Administration Act prohibited the firm from producing and tendering into evidence documents of outstanding tax liability or taxation affairs generally.

The firm then submitted that the court should infer the defendants and their legal representation have “detailed knowledge” of its financial position as a result of the EA’s employment and her past personal relationship and social interactions with Green.

Justice Williams rejected this submission.

“Mr Green – the sole director of the plaintiff and the principal solicitor of the incorporated legal practice – could have given direct evidence about the plaintiff’s financial position, yet refrained from doing so in any of the lengthy affidavits that he affirmed and read (or sought to read) at the hearing of the security for costs motion.

“In those circumstances, the court will not draw inferences in the plaintiff’s failure. The most natural inference is that any evidence that Green could have given would not have been favourable to the plaintiff’s opposition to the security for costs motion,” the judge said.

Green argued security of costs should be capped at $96,000 – or around $67,000 on a party and party basis – because he allowed for “significantly less time” for the work to prepare for the proceedings, assumed counsel would not be briefed, that a solicitor would appear at trial, and the trial would take two days instead of four.

Justice Williams said this evidence “significantly underestimates the amount of work” needed for each stage of pre-trial preparation, particularly due “to the prolix pleadings and voluminous evidence that the defendants are likely to be required to plead and respond to”.

“The plaintiff has filed and served thousands of pages of evidence at this early stage, even before any directions have been made for filing and service of the parties’ affidavits in chief,” Justice Williams said.

Having identified some of the defendant’s estimates to be duplications, Justice Williams ordered the quantum of security to be reduced to $240,000, to be paid in three equal tranches.

The case: Green & Associates Pty Ltd t/as Green & Associates Solicitors v Shea [2026] NSWSC 102.