Ball v Brydens Lawyers Pty Ltd

Local Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Ball v Brydens Lawyers Pty Ltd [2018] NSWLC 23

Hearing dates:

21, 26 July 2018

Decision date:

17 August 2018

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Before:

Huntsman LCM

Decision:

Verdict for the defendant

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEEDINGS – unjust enrichment – restitution – common law claim for money had and received – freestanding claim for interest

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 100

Cases Cited:

Bofinger v Kingsway Group Limited [2009] HCA 44; (2009) 239 CLR 269

Commonwealth v SCI Operations Pty Limited [1998] HCA 20; (1998) 192 CLR 285

Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Haxton; Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Bassat; Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Cunningham's Warehouse Sales Pty Ltd [2012] HCA 7; (2012) 246 CLR 498

Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 22; (2007) 230 CLR 89; (2007) 81 ALJR 1107

Friend v Brooker [2009] HCA 21; (2009) 239 CLR 129

Heydon v NRMA Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 445

Lahoud & Anor v Lahoud & Ors [2011] NSWCA 405

Lahoud v Lahoud [2010] NSWSC 1297

State Bank of New South Wales v Commissioner of Taxation for the Commonwealth of Australia [1995] FCA 1652

Woolworths Limited v Strong (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 72; (2011) 80 NSWLR 445

Texts Cited:

Mason and Carter’s Restitution Law in Australia (3rd ed, 2016, LexisNexis)

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Stuart Ball (plaintiff)
Brydens Lawyers Pty Ltd (defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
Mr A Coombes (plaintiff)
Mr P Macarounas (defendant)

Solicitor:
Firths – The Compensation Lawyers (plaintiff)
Brydens Lawyers Pty Ltd (defendant)

File Number(s):

2017/00352932

Judgment

Background

1. This was a claim by the plaintiff, Mr Ball, arising out of a dispute between Mr Ball and the defendant, Brydens Lawyers Pty Ltd, in relation to legal costs. The defendant acted for the plaintiff in a claim for damages under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, in respect of injuries suffered by the plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff’s claim was settled for damages in the amount of $650,000 inclusive of costs. Subsequently there was a dispute about the bill for costs and disbursements, which had been issued by the defendant to the plaintiff. At the time of settlement the bill for costs and disbursements had been paid by the plaintiff from the settlement monies.

2. The bill was subject to assessment pursuant to the provisions of the Legal Profession Act 2004, on application by the plaintiff. As detailed below, the result of the assessment was that the amount to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, for costs and disbursements, was for a lesser amount.

3. The plaintiff’s case is that the defendant had use of the disputed amount to the detriment of the plaintiff, and therefore the defendant should pay the plaintiff interest on the disputed amount from the date of the original Bill to the date of reimbursement of the disputed costs.

Agreed facts

4. The parties provided a statement of agreed facts as follows.

5. On 17 September 2015, the…