Cameron v Dennis

[2006] NSWDC 32

Reported Decision: Appeal dismissed [2007] NSWCA 228

District Court

CITATION:	Cameron v Dennis [2006] NSWDC 32 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S):	20 September 2006
JUDGMENT DATE:	26 September 2006
JUDGMENT OF:	Johnstone DCJ at 1
DECISION:	Judgment for the plaintiff; Defendant to pay plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis
CATCHWORDS:	LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 1987 - Barrister's invoices (bills) - Liability of solicitor - Legal Profession Act not applicable as the proceedings not for the recovery of costs, but brought to enforce a subsequent deferral arrangement - Whether the bills complied with the Act: signature and other particulars required by Clause 22A of the Legal Profession Regulation 1994 - Particulars not required if solicitor already aware of relevant matters
LEGISLATION CITED:	Legal Profession Act 1987: s 192(1) and s 194(1) Legal Profession Regulation1994: Clause 22A
CASES CITED:	Hogarth v Gye [2002] NSWSC 32 at [25]. Koutsourais v Metledge & Associates [2004] NSWCA 313
PARTIES:	Robert William Cameron (Plaintiff) Bruce Vernon Dennis (Defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S):	5480/2005
COUNSEL:	Mr D F Rofe QC (Plaintiff) Mr J Johnson (Defendant)
SOLICITORS:	McLaughlin & Riordan (Plaintiff) Dennis & Co (Defendant)

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR

Introduction

1. Mr Cameron was a barrister who was regularly briefed by Mr Dennis, a solicitor, on behalf of clients of Mr Dennis.

2. In August 1997 Mr Dennis briefed Mr Cameron to advise and appear for clients in respect of proceedings in the Federal Court, which included an appeal, from 1997 to 2000. Mr Cameron rendered several invoices for his fees to Mr Dennis, totalling $79,158.95.

3. Early in 2001, after completion of the litigation, Mr Dennis asked Mr Cameron to agree to defer payment of his fees for a period of a year or more to allow a subdivision and sale of property by the clients of land at Menangle Park, on the basis that Mr Cameron’s fees were to be paid out of the proceeds, with interest, and secured by a mortgage. Mr Cameron agreed.

4. Although the land at Menangle Park was subsequently subdivided and sold, Mr Cameron has not been paid. He claims payment, pursuant to that agreement, of $79,158.95 plus interest from the date of sale.

5. Mr Dennis disputes any liability to Mr Cameron.

6. Mr Dennis says first that Mr Cameron agreed, at the time he was retained in 1997, to defer his fees until Mr Dennis received payment from the clients. Mr Dennis has never received payment from the clients.

7. Secondly, Mr Dennis says that Mr Cameron’s claim is for the recovery of costs and not maintainable because his invoices did not comply with the Legal Profession Act 1987: s 192(1).

8. Mr Cameron says, in response, that his claim is not for the recovery of costs, based on the invoices, but for the amount agreed under the 2001 agreement.

9. Mr Cameron says, alternatively, that his invoices did comply with the Legal Profession Act 1987