ALDRIDGE & KEATON

This matter concerned an application for review of a Registrar's decision regarding the extension of time to serve an itemised costs account. The applicant, Ms. Keaton, sought an extension, which was opposed by the respondent, Mr. Aldridge. The central dispute revolved around whether the Registrar's decision to grant the extension was appropriate, considering the explanation for the delay and potential financial hardship.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the Registrar erred in granting an extension of time for the service of Ms. Keaton’s itemised costs account, specifically considering the adequacy of the explanation for the delay and the absence of financial hardship on the respondent. Secondly, the court considered whether the 'pro bono' nature of the costs agreement precluded the recovery of costs, and in light of a finding that the costs agreement was void, what constituted the fair and reasonable value of the legal services provided.

In relation to the extension of time, Watts J found that there was an adequate explanation for the delay in serving the itemised costs account and that the respondent would not suffer financial hardship as a result of granting the extension. The court noted that the lack of hardship on the applicant was not a significant factor in this determination. Regarding the costs agreement, the court discussed the indemnity principle and concluded that the agreement was void. Consequently, the fair and reasonable value of the legal services was to be determined in accordance with the scales of costs.

The court ordered that the time for service of Ms. Keaton’s itemised costs account be extended to 19 July 2010, and the time for service of any response be extended to 28 days from the date of the order.