Baldsing v Voitin Walker Davis Pty Ltd

[2012] VSC 49

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

No. 07070 of 2010

IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to s 109 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1998 (Vic)

BETWEEN

AINSLEY BALDSING	Appellant
and
VOITIN WALKER DAVIS PTY LTD	Respondent

---

JUDGE:

MACAULAY J

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

6-7 February 2012

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

22 February 2012

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

Baldsing v Voitin Walker Davis Pty Ltd

JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:

Magistrates’ Court of Victoria

(J.F. Fitz-Gerald M, 25 November 2010)

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2012] VSC 49

---

APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATES’ COURT – appeal on question of law – s 109 of the Magistrates’ Court Act1989 (Vic) - Legal practitioners – Claim for professional costs - Whether legal practitioners negligent – Whether work valueless – Whether assessment of costs properly quantified – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr. J. Levine	Richelle Scherman, Solicitor
For the Respondent	Mr. A. Panna S.C	Stynes Dixon Lawyers

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1

The Supreme Court litigation..................................................................................................... 1
The Magistrates’ Court claim...................................................................................................... 3
The magistrate’s decision............................................................................................................ 4
The grounds of appeal................................................................................................................. 6

Were the solicitors’ services valueless?.......................................................................................... 7

No (or insubstantial) loss/wrong plaintiff................................................................................ 8

Contract claim............................................................................................................................ 9

The claim was legally limited............................................................................................... 9
Implied nomination.............................................................................................................. 11
The claim was factually insubstantial................................................................................ 13

Misrepresentation claim........................................................................................................... 17

Improper purpose....................................................................................................................... 19
Onus to prove the law?.............................................................................................................. 21
Conflict of interest....................................................................................................................... 22
‘Fundamental negligence’: a novel standard?........................................................................ 23

Negligence over the whole retainer.............................................................................................. 24

Quantification of legal costs........................................................................................................... 25

Section 91 of the 1996 Act........................................................................................................... 26
Costs spent on the misrepresentation claim........................................................................... 26
Competing experts...................................................................................................................... 26
Representation that the 2004 Act applied............................................................................... 27

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 28

Appendix: Appellant’s grounds of appeal.................................................................................. 29

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

1. Ainsley Baldsing, the appellant, retained solicitors Voitin Walker Davis Pty Ltd (‘VWD’), the respondent, to issue and conduct litigation in the Supreme Court of Victoria.  The case settled before trial.  Before the settlement VWD ceased acting for Baldsing.  When VWD later sued Baldsing in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria for outstanding legal fees Baldsing denied that any debt was due.  In the alternative he alleged that certain fees were not recoverable because they were excessive or the work for which they were charged was unnecessary. 

1. In broad terms, Baldsing argued that the solicitors should never have issued proceedings on his behalf.  Therefore, he said, they were not entitled to any costs beyond some preliminary investigation costs.  Secondly, he argued that, even if the proceedings were properly commenced, the solicitors were negligent in the conduct of the litigation so that certain costs should have been disallowed or he should have been awarded damages to be set off against any costs due.  Thirdly, he took issue with the basis upon which the bills of costs were drawn. He also counterclaimed for the costs he had incurred when he retained new solicitors after VWD ceased acting.

1. After hearing the matter, a magistrate dismissed the counterclaim and upheld the solicitors’ claim…