Branson v Tucker

In *Branson v Tucker*, the applicant, a barrister, sought to recover charges from a firm of solicitors pursuant to a costs agreement. The solicitors disputed the charges, alleging they were not reasonable given the barrister's skill and the work undertaken. The barrister applied to strike out this defence, arguing that the *Legal Profession Act 2004* provided an exclusive regime for assessing the reasonableness of costs, thereby ousting the court's jurisdiction. The primary judge refused to strike out the defence. The matter proceeded to the Court of Appeal, with the applicant seeking leave to appeal and to challenge a previous decision of the Court.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the statutory costs assessment regime under the *Legal Profession Act 2004* exclusively determined the reasonableness of a barrister's charges when sued for unpaid fees, and whether the District Court possessed jurisdiction to hear such a claim as a contractual dispute. Additionally, the Court considered the circumstances under which leave would be granted to challenge a previous decision of the Court.

The Court of Appeal held that the jurisdiction of the District Court to determine the reasonableness of disputed items in a bill of costs rendered by a law practice or practitioner suing for unpaid fees was not ousted by the statutory costs assessment regime. It reasoned that while barristers were traditionally not engaged by contract, this common law position had been altered by statute. A costs agreement entered into by a barrister in accordance with the *Legal Profession Act* could be sued upon as part of a contract for legal services, meaning the court had jurisdiction to hear the matter as it would any other contract claim involving disputed charges. Regarding the application to challenge a previous decision, the Court reiterated that leave would only be granted in exceptional circumstances, requiring a strong conviction by the sitting judges that the previous decision was incorrect, a threshold not met in this instance.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal granted the applicant leave to appeal, directed the filing of a notice of appeal, but refused leave to argue that specific aspects of *Attard v James Legal Pty Ltd* were incorrectly decided. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal.