SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Adamson v Williams [2001] QCA 38 PARTIES: CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL ADAMSON
(plaintiff/applicant)
v
LYLE JAMES WILLIAMS
(defendant/respondent)FILE NO/S: Appeal No 9510 of 2000
DC No 971 of 1999DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: Application for leave s 118 DCA (Civil) ORIGINATING
COURT:District Court at Southport DELIVERED ON: 16 February 2001 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 31 January 2001 JUDGES: McMurdo P, Thomas JA, Mullins J
Judgment of the CourtORDER:
1. Leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed. 2. The judgment in the District Court is set aside and replaced with an order allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment in the Magistrates Court. 3. New trial ordered. 4. Parties granted liberty to re-plead. 5. No order as to the costs of this appeal, of the appeal in the District Court or of the proceedings before the magistrate. 6. Respondent is granted an indemnity certificate under s 15(1) Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973. CATCHWORDS:
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS - SOLICITOR AND CLIENT - RETAINER - REMUNERATION - BILLS OF COST - ACTIONS TO RECOVER COSTS - UNFINISHED MATTER OR SUIT - appeal for the recovery of legal fees and outgoings – whether the evidence of the solicitor as to the oral retainer should be preferred to that of the client - whether solicitor involved in speculative action is entitled to costs where client withdraws prior to action concluding - whether solicitor who conducts own case is entitled to professional costs CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – DISCHARGE, BREACH AND DEFENCES TO ACTION FOR BREACH – REPUDIATION AND NON- PERFORMANCE – REPUDIATION – WHAT AMOUNTS TO REPUDIATION – whether claim brought in contract or a restitutionary claim - whether premature and unjustified termination by client - whether solicitor relying on oral retainer ought to have the benefit of the contract - whether magistrates findings adequate - whether proceedings miscarried Appeals Costs Funds Act 1973 (Qld), s15(1), s16(1)(b)
District Court Act 1967 (Qld), s118
Legal Practitioners Act 1995 (Qld), s 23Allen v Bone [1841] 49 ER 429, considered
ANZ Banking Group Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation
(1988) 164 CLR 662, 673, considered
Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon (1993) 176 CLR 344, considered
Central Queensland Developments Pty Ltd [1988] 2 QdR
476, considered
Chapman v Rogers; ex parte Chapman [1984] 1 QdR 542,
544-545, compared
Clare v Joseph [1907] 2 KB 369, 376, 378, considered
David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia
(1992) 175 CLR 353, considered
Griffiths v Evans [1953] 2 All ER 1364, 1369, considered
Jeffery v Associated National Insurance Co Ltd [1984] 1 Qd
R 238, 245, considered
McIntosh Hamson Hoare Govett Ltd v Pinnacle Properties
Ltd Appeal No 166 of 1994, 5 May 1995, 7, considered
Morgan v Blyth [1891] 1 Ch 337, 335, considered
Pavey and Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221,
considered
Reed v Gray [1952] Ch 337, considered
Secured Income Real Estate (Australia) v St Martins
Continue reading Adamson v Williams
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Adamson v Williams [2001] QCA 38
- Case
- [2001] QCA 38
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Adamson v Williams, the dispute centred around the recovery of legal fees and expenses by a solicitor, Adamson, against his former client, Williams. The matter proceeded through the Magistrates Court, the District Court, and ultimately reached the higher court. The crux of the legal issues was whether the evidence provided by the solicitor regarding an oral retainer agreement should be given precedence over the client's version, and whether the solicitor was entitled to costs where the client had withdrawn from the case prior to its conclusion. Additionally, the court examined whether a solicitor who represented himself in court was entitled to professional costs.
The court found that the evidence of the solicitor concerning the oral retainer agreement was credible and should be preferred. The court held that the client's early withdrawal from the case did not absolve the solicitor of his right to claim costs, particularly given that the case was speculative and had not progressed to a point where the solicitor could be considered to have incurred significant liability. The court also ruled that a solicitor who represented himself in court was entitled to professional costs, as this was a necessary part of his duties in the case. The higher court concluded that the lower courts had erred in their findings and that the proceedings had miscarried due to these errors.
Accordingly, the court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. The judgment of the District Court was set aside, and the appeal against the Magistrates Court's judgment was upheld. A new trial was ordered, and the parties were granted leave to re-plead. There was no order regarding the costs of the appeal or the previous proceedings, and the respondent was granted an indemnity certificate under the relevant statute.
The court found that the evidence of the solicitor concerning the oral retainer agreement was credible and should be preferred. The court held that the client's early withdrawal from the case did not absolve the solicitor of his right to claim costs, particularly given that the case was speculative and had not progressed to a point where the solicitor could be considered to have incurred significant liability. The court also ruled that a solicitor who represented himself in court was entitled to professional costs, as this was a necessary part of his duties in the case. The higher court concluded that the lower courts had erred in their findings and that the proceedings had miscarried due to these errors.
Accordingly, the court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. The judgment of the District Court was set aside, and the appeal against the Magistrates Court's judgment was upheld. A new trial was ordered, and the parties were granted leave to re-plead. There was no order regarding the costs of the appeal or the previous proceedings, and the respondent was granted an indemnity certificate under the relevant statute.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed.
2.
The judgment in the District Court is set aside and replaced with an order allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment in the Magistrates Court.
3.
New trial ordered.
4.
Parties granted liberty to re-plead.
5.
No order as to the costs of this appeal, of the appeal in the District Court or of the proceedings before the magistrate.
6.
Respondent is granted an indemnity certificate under s 15(1) Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.