Adamson v Miller

The appeal in Adamson v Miller was brought by the plaintiff, seeking to overturn a costs assessor’s decision regarding the costs incurred during the legal proceedings. The primary dispute centred on the enforceability of a deed, which was purportedly executed as a costs agreement. The deed, however, was executed by individuals claiming to be agents for the defendant, and not by the defendant himself. Despite this, the plaintiff proceeded to perform legal services on the basis of this document. The costs assessor determined that the defendant had not agreed to pay the plaintiff's costs, and further ruled that no legal liability existed due to the expiry of the relevant limitation period.

The central legal issues that the court needed to resolve included whether the deed could be considered a valid costs agreement given it was signed by purported agents rather than the defendant, and whether the costs assessor’s decision could be reviewed for errors of law. Additionally, the court had to consider the applicability of the natural justice principle in the context of the costs assessor’s decision-making process, particularly given the absence of the defendant in the execution of the deed. The plaintiff argued that the costs assessor had failed to observe natural justice by not allowing the defendant to be heard on the issue of the deed's validity.

The court concluded that the costs assessor had not acted outside the scope of their authority by refusing to enforce the costs agreement. The reasoning was based on the principle that the costs assessment process is not a court action, and therefore, the strict rules of natural justice do not apply in the same manner. The court found that the costs assessor correctly identified that the deed was not binding on the defendant, as it was executed by individuals purporting to act as agents, but without actual authority. Furthermore, the court upheld the costs assessor's finding that the defendant had no legal liability due to the limitation period, reinforcing that the assessment was not a judicial proceeding where limitation defences could be raised. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the costs assessor's decision was upheld.