Able Demolitions and Excavations Pty Ltd v Barry Kenna and Co

In Able Demolitions and Excavations Pty Ltd v Barry Kenna and Co, the client, Able Demolitions, sought an itemised bill for legal services provided by the respondent, Barry Kenna and Co. The dispute centred around whether an agreement between the parties, where the client accepted a discounted sum in full satisfaction of the legal costs, constituted an accord and satisfaction that extinguished the client's rights to review under the Legal Profession Act 2004 (Vic). Additionally, the court considered whether the client was precluded from requesting an itemised bill if an accord and satisfaction had indeed been reached.

The legal issues before the court were primarily whether the client’s agreement to accept a discounted sum on a specific date amounted to an accord and satisfaction, and if such an agreement barred the client from requesting an itemised bill. The court also needed to determine if the client was entitled to an extension of time to commence proceedings in the Costs Court, considering the delay and the reasons for it.

The court found that the client's agreement to a discounted sum on an ascertainable date did amount to an accord and satisfaction, effectively extinguishing the client’s rights to review under the Legal Profession Act 2004 (Vic). The court applied precedents such as Gadens Lawyers v Beba Enterprises Pty Ltd and GLS v Goodman to reach this conclusion. Furthermore, the court held that once an accord and satisfaction had been reached, the client was precluded from requesting an itemised bill, as established in Hawkins v Clayton. The court also granted an extension of time for the client to commence proceedings in the Costs Court, taking into account the length of the delay, the explanation for the delay, and the potential prejudice to the client.

The final orders included a dismissal of the client's application for an itemised bill and a grant of an extension of time to commence proceedings in the Costs Court.