Bennett (a pseudonym) v Farrar Gesini Dunn Pty Ltd

The case of Bennett versus Farrar Gesini Dunn Pty Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The matter involved a dispute over legal costs, with Bennett, the plaintiff, contesting the validity of a costs agreement between the parties. Bennett argued that the costs agreement was void because it did not comply with the disclosure requirements set out in the Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014. The defendant, Farrar Gesini Dunn Pty Ltd, contested the claim, asserting that the costs agreement was valid and enforceable.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the costs agreement was void due to the non-compliance with the disclosure obligations under the Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014. The court was also required to determine the appropriate hourly rates to be applied in the family law context for the purposes of assessing the costs. In particular, the court had to consider whether the rates set out in the Family Law (Family Law Practitioners’ Fees) Regulations 2015 were applicable.

The court found that the costs agreement was indeed void due to the failure to comply with the disclosure requirements. The court referred to the case of Johnston v Dimos, where it was held that non-compliance with these requirements rendered the agreement void. The court also held that the hourly rates applicable for family law matters were those set out in the Family Law (Family Law Practitioners’ Fees) Regulations 2015, and not the higher commercial rates. This decision was based on the nature of the proceedings, which were family law matters, and the specific regulatory framework that applied to such cases.

The court ordered that the costs agreement was void and that Bennett was not liable to pay the costs claimed by Farrar Gesini Dunn Pty Ltd. Furthermore, the court directed that the assessment of costs would be based on the family law hourly rates, as specified in the relevant regulations.