B & L Linings Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (No 6) (RD)

B & L Linings Pty Ltd brought proceedings against the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The dispute centred on the assessment of costs incurred during the litigation, particularly those related to the engagement of an accounting firm, whose employees held legal qualifications, to conduct the proceedings. The AAT had previously ruled on the costs, and the matter was now before the court to determine the appropriate basis for assessing these costs. The central legal issues were whether the costs incurred by engaging the accounting firm, including those associated with appearances by its qualified employees, should be assessed under the Legal Profession Act 2004 and the correct procedure for such assessment. The court needed to decide on the applicability of the Act and the appropriate method for evaluating the costs.

The court held that the costs incurred by the successful party, B & L Linings Pty Ltd, should be assessed under Division 11 of Part 3.2 of the Legal Profession Act 2004. This assessment was necessitated by the involvement of the accounting firm's employees who possessed legal qualifications and appeared in the proceedings. The court reasoned that since these employees were effectively acting as legal practitioners, their involvement warranted assessment under the Act. Furthermore, the court outlined a procedural approach for determining these costs, including the submission of relevant documentation by both parties and a subsequent determination 'on the papers' under the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997.

The court issued an order stipulating that the costs assessed by the AAT were to be reassessed under the Legal Profession Act 2004 by a costs assessor appointed under Division 11 of Part 3.2. Additionally, it mandated a procedural timeline for both parties to file and serve their submissions on the costs incurred since the AAT's decision. The matter was to be resolved based on these submissions, with general liberty to apply. This decision ensured that the costs associated with the accounting firm's involvement were properly assessed in accordance with the legal framework.