Property developer Marcus Jacobson employed Matt Blomfield’s litigation support service to assist with re-negotiation of a multi-million debt owed off-shore financiers, then disputed steps taken to freeze all his personal assets following unpaid Blomfield Consulting invoices totalling some $40,000. The High Court refused to intervene. Doing so would negate Blomfield’s business model requiring high risk clients offer rock-solid security before work starts.
The court was told terms of contract for Blomfield Consulting Ltd included power to enforce a Personal Properties Act general security agreement over Mr Jacobson’s personal assets should he fail to pay invoices.
These general security agreements allow all assets owned by a debtor at time of default to be seized.
Notice warning future creditors of a prior secured charge is achieved by registering agreements on the Personal Properties Securities Register.
Evidence was given that Mr Jacobson asked Blomfield Consulting for help in dealing with financier Arena Finance, in particular ferreting out information that could be used as leverage against Arena.
This work did lead to a complaint about Arena being drafted, intended for filing with Serious Fraud Office.
Consulting work for property developers is a high-risk business. Non-payment of invoices is a common commercial risk, Mr Blomfield said. He demands security upfront, to protect his business.
Mr Jacobson challenged Blomfield Consulting’s enforcement of its general security agreement, freezing his bank accounts.
He disputed liability on unpaid invoices, saying they were charges for work never done and that some of the work done was in fact work done on behalf of Arena.
Justice Wilkinson-Smith said Mr Jacobson belatedly challenged the amount due only after Blomfield Consulting appointed its receiver. Blomfield’s terms of contract state clients have seven days to dispute invoices, otherwise invoices are deemed accepted.
She declined Mr Jacobson’s request the personal property receivership be put on hold. Doing so would destroy Blomfield Consulting’s business model, she said.
Mr Jacobson’s complaint that receivership would destroy his business reputation was overstated, she said.
The court was told Mr Jacobson has been director of six companies put into receivership or liquidation in the last four years.
Jacobsen v. Hoole – High Court (28.08.25)
25.188