Black v Alexiou

In the case of Black v Alexiou, the applicant, Mr Black, sought a statutory review of an assessment of costs carried out by a costs assessor under the Legal Profession Act (NT). The dispute arose from legal proceedings between the parties, with Mr Black applying to the court for a review of the costs assessment. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated a sufficient basis for the statutory review of the costs assessment, particularly whether there was an error of fact or law in the assessment. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the assessment was fair and reasonable, considering the appropriateness of the disclosure of estimated costs and the deductions made.

The court examined the applicant's burden of showing that a review should be conducted, which generally requires demonstrating an error of fact or law in the assessment. The applicant contended that the assessment was flawed due to the inappropriate disclosure of estimated costs and the deductions made. However, the court found no evidence of any such errors. The court held that the applicant had not discharged the onus of proving that the assessment was incorrect. The court also noted that the common law immunity for advocates, which previously protected them from being sued for outstanding fees, had been overridden by the Legal Profession Act (NT). As a result, the court dismissed the application for review, finding no grounds to overturn the assessment.

Given the findings, the court dismissed the application for statutory review of the costs assessment. The applicant was not able to demonstrate any error in the assessment, and thus, the order for costs remained as assessed by the costs assessor. The court emphasised the importance of the applicant meeting the onus of proving that a review should be conducted, and in this instance, the applicant had not succeeded in doing so. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed, and the original costs assessment stood.