Cannon Street P/L v Karedis - [2006] QCA 541

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Cannon Street P/L & Ors v Karedis & Ors [2006] QCA 541

PARTIES:

CANNON STREET PTY LIMITED
(ACN 001 302 085)
(first plaintiff/first appellant)
MARGARET ELIZABETH KELLY
(second plaintiff/second appellant)
TIMOTHY CHRISTOPHER KELLY
(third plaintiff/third appellant)
v
THEO KAREDIS
(first defendant/first respondent)
GREGORY KAREDIS
(second defendant/second respondent)
PESUTU PTY LTD
(ACN 002 276 208)
(third defendant/third respondent)
GTK RETAILING PTY LTD
(ACN 002 031 414)
(fourth defendant/fourth respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 3889 of 2006
SC No 11302 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 December 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 November 2006

JUDGES:

Williams and Jerrard JJA and Chesterman J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – REMUNERATION – COSTS STATEMENTS – ACTIONS TO RECOVER COSTS – OTHER CASES – NSW – where at first instance the respondents were entitled to claim (pursuant to s 55B(4) Judiciary Act1903 (Cth)) for work done in the Queensland Supreme Court by solicitors who were not admitted to practice in Queensland – whether the trial judge erred in allowing the respondents to recover for work done by New South Wales solicitors who were not the holders of a practising certificate in Queensland

Bankruptcy Act 1869 (UK), s 70
Bankruptcy Act 1883 (UK), s 151
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 49, s 55, s 78, s 86
Queensland Law Society Act 1952 (Qld), s 48F
Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld), s 209
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 706(3), r 714(3)

APLA Ltd v Legal Services Commissioner (NSW) [2005] HCA 44; (2005) 79 ALJR 1620, applied
Beaton v McDivitt (1985) 13 NSWLR 134, considered
Caboolture Park Shopping Centre (in liq) v White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd (1993) 45 FCR 224, considered
Ex parte Broadhouse; in re Broadhouse (1867) LR 2 Ch App 655, cited
In re a Debtor [1934] Ch 280, considered
Kay's Leasing Corporation Pty Ltd v Fletcher (1964) 116 CLR 124, considered
Minister forWorks v Australian Dredging and General Works Pty Ltd [1986] WAR 235, considered
Re O'Connor's Bills of Costs [1993] 1 Qd R 423, distinguished
Santos Ltd & Ors v Delhi Petroleum Pty Ltd [2005] SASC 242, No SCCIV-98-1315, 30 June 2005, considered
Victoria v The Commonwealth (1937) 58 CLR 618, considered
Western Australian v Ward (1997) 76 FCR 492, considered

COUNSEL:

R M Derrington SC for the appellants
B O’Donnell QC, with D G Clothier, for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Mallesons Stephens Jaques for the appellants
Clayton Utz for the respondents

WILLIAMS JA:
This is an appeal from a decision of a judge of the trial division on a reference from the Deputy Registrar. At first instance it was held that the respondents were entitled to claim by virtue of the provisions of s 55B(4) of the

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cannon Street P/L v Karedis and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] QCA 541
Decision Date: 15 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cannon Street P/L was involved in a legal dispute with Karedis. The primary issue was whether the respondents were entitled to claim for work done by solicitors not admitted to practice in Queensland, under section 55B(4) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). Specifically, the case examined if the trial judge was correct in allowing the recovery of costs for work performed by New South Wales solicitors who did not hold a practising certificate in Queensland. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining the correctness of the trial judge's decision.

The legal issues addressed by the court included the interpretation of section 55B(4) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and the applicability of this provision to the specific circumstances of the case. The court had to consider whether the trial judge had correctly applied the law in allowing the respondents to claim for costs associated with the services provided by New South Wales solicitors who were not admitted to practice in Queensland. This involved an analysis of the statutory framework governing legal costs and the qualifications required for solicitors to practice in different jurisdictions.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had not erred in allowing the respondents to claim for work done by the New South Wales solicitors. The court held that the statutory provision did not preclude the respondents from recovering costs for services performed by out-of-state solicitors, provided those services were rendered in a manner consistent with the law. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the decision of the trial judge was upheld. The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Cannon Street P/L & Ors v Karedis & Ors [2006] QCA 541
PARTIES:	CANNON STREET PTY LIMITED (ACN 001 302 085) (first plaintiff/first appellant) MARGARET ELIZABETH KELLY (second plaintiff/second appellant) TIMOTHY CHRISTOPHER KELLY (third plaintiff/third appellant) v THEO KAREDIS (first defendant/first respondent) GREGORY KAREDIS (second defendant/second respondent) PESUTU PTY LTD (ACN 002 276 208) (third defendant/third respondent) GTK RETAILING PTY LTD (ACN 002 031 414) (fourth defendant/fourth respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 3889 of 2006 SC No 11302 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	15 December 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 November 2006
JUDGES:	Williams and Jerrard JJA and Chesterman J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – REMUNERATION – COSTS STATEMENTS – ACTIONS TO RECOVER COSTS – OTHER CASES – NSW – where at first instance the respondents were entitled to claim (pursuant to s 55B(4) Judiciary Act1903 (Cth)) for work done in the Queensland Supreme Court by solicitors who were not admitted to practice in Queensland – whether the trial judge erred in allowing the respondents to recover for work done by New South Wales solicitors who were not the holders of a practising certificate in Queensland Bankruptcy Act 1869 (UK), s 70 Bankruptcy Act 1883 (UK), s 151 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 49, s 55, s 78, s 86 Queensland Law Society Act 1952 (Qld), s 48F Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld), s 209 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 706(3), r 714(3) APLA Ltd v Legal Services Commissioner (NSW) [2005] HCA 44; (2005) 79 ALJR 1620, applied Beaton v McDivitt (1985) 13 NSWLR 134, considered Caboolture Park Shopping Centre (in liq) v White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd (1993) 45 FCR 224, considered Ex parte Broadhouse; in re Broadhouse (1867) LR 2 Ch App 655, cited In re a Debtor [1934] Ch 280, considered Kay's Leasing Corporation Pty Ltd v Fletcher (1964) 116 CLR 124, considered Minister forWorks v Australian Dredging and General Works Pty Ltd [1986] WAR 235, considered Re O'Connor's Bills of Costs [1993] 1 Qd R 423, distinguished Santos Ltd & Ors v Delhi Petroleum Pty Ltd [2005] SASC 242, No SCCIV-98-1315, 30 June 2005, considered Victoria v The Commonwealth (1937) 58 CLR 618, considered Western Australian v Ward (1997) 76 FCR 492, considered
COUNSEL:	R M Derrington SC for the appellants B O’Donnell QC, with D G Clothier, for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	Mallesons Stephens Jaques for the appellants Clayton Utz for the respondents