Cannon Street Pty Ltd v Karedis - [2006] QSC 78

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Cannon Street Pty Ltd & Ors v Karedis & Ors [2006] QSC 078

PARTIES:

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

FILE NO:

BS11302 of 2003

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Reference from the Registrar

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

13 April 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 February 2006; further written submissions 22 February and 1 March 2006.

JUDGE:

White J

ORDER:

The reference from the Deputy Registrar should be answered as follows:

1. The defendants are entitled to claim for the work done in the proceeding by solicitors who were not admitted to practise in the State of Queensland by virtue of the provisions of s 55B(4) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).

2. Unnecessary to answer.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – REMUNERATION – COSTS STATEMENTS – ACTIONS TO RECOVER COSTS – OTHER CASES – N.S.W. solicitors conducting proceedings in Queensland without statutory qualifications – entitlement to recover costs – Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 55B – Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) s 209

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – OPERATION AND EFFECT OF THE COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION – INCONSISTENCY OF LAWS (CONSTITUTION, s 109) – State law regarding legal practitioners – whether Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) s 209 inconsistent with Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 55B

Constitution (Cth), s 71, s 74(iv), s75(iv), s 109
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 237, s 1037(2)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 55B, s86
Matrimonial Causes Act 1959 (Cth)

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 35(1)(b)
Arbitration Act 1895 (WA)
Legal Practitioners Act 1974 (NT)
Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW), Division 3
Legal Profession Amendment (Personal Injury Advertising) Regulation 2003 (NSW)
Partnership Act 1891 (Qld) s 5(1)
Queensland Law Society Act 1952 (Qld) s 38, s 44, s 48
Supreme Court Act 1867 (Qld), s 38A, s 58
Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld), s 209, s 221
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 691, 703, 685, 710(1), 713, 736, 714

Bankruptcy Act 1869 (Eng)
Bankruptcy Act 1883 (Eng), s 151
Solicitor’s Act 1957 (Eng)

In Re A Debtor [1934] 1 Ch 280, considered
APLA Ltd v Legal Services Commissioner (NSW) [2005] HCA 44, applied
Australian Mutual Provident Society v Goulden (1986) 160 CLR 330, applied
Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403, cited
De Pardo v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee [2000] FCA 335, applied
Elders Trustee and Executor Company Ltd as Executors of the Estate of Howard v Estate of Herbert (1996) 111 NTR 25, discussed
Grundmann v Georgeson [2000] QCA 394, cited
Gundry v Sainsbury [1910] 1 KB 645, cited
In Re Hope (1872) LR 7 Ch App 766, cited
Hudgell Yeates & Co v Watson [1978] 1 QB 45, discussed
In re…

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 Pty Ltd 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] QSC 78
Decision Date: 13 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Cannon Street Pty Ltd v Karedis, the dispute centred around the entitlement of a New South Wales solicitor to recover costs incurred in legal proceedings conducted in Queensland, where the solicitor was not admitted to practise. The case was heard in the Queensland Supreme Court, which was asked to determine the applicability of federal law in relation to state law concerning the qualifications of legal practitioners. The central legal issue before the court was whether a New South Wales solicitor, acting under the provisions of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 55B, was entitled to recover costs for work done in Queensland, where the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) s 209 generally precluded non-local solicitors from recovering costs.

The court examined the interplay between federal and state laws concerning legal practitioners. The Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 55B allows solicitors from other Australian jurisdictions to appear in federal courts or courts in another state, provided certain conditions are met. Conversely, the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) s 209 stipulates that only solicitors admitted in Queensland can recover costs in proceedings before the Queensland Supreme Court. The court needed to ascertain whether the federal statute, which facilitates interstate legal practice, could override the state statute that restricts cost recovery to locally admitted solicitors. After thorough analysis, the court concluded that the federal provision did indeed prevail, thereby permitting the New South Wales solicitor to claim costs for work performed in Queensland.

The Supreme Court held that the federal law was not inconsistent with the state law as it provided a specific exception that allowed for the recovery of costs by out-of-state solicitors in certain circumstances. The court found that the federal legislation, which enables interstate legal practice, should be interpreted in a way that does not conflict with state laws but rather supplements them to provide a coherent legal framework for interstate legal services. Therefore, the defendants, who were represented by a New South Wales solicitor, were entitled to claim for the work done under the federal statute. The court's decision underscored the primacy of federal law in cases of conflict with state laws regarding interstate legal practice.

Orders

Orders of the court

The reference from the Deputy Registrar should be answered as follows:

1. The defendants are entitled to claim for the work done in the proceeding by solicitors who were not admitted to practise in the State of Queensland by virtue of the provisions of s 55B(4) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).

2. Unnecessary to answer.

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 Pty Ltd & Ors v Karedis & Ors [2006] QSC 078
PARTIES:	CANNON STREET PTY LIMITED (ACN 001 302 085) (first plaintiff) MARGARET ELIZABETH KELLY (second plaintiff) TIMOTHY CHRISTOPHER KELLY (third plaintiff) v THEO KAREDIS (first defendant) GREGORY KAREDIS (second defendant) PESUTU PTY LTD (ACN 002 276 208) (third defendant) GTK RETAILING PTY LTD (ACN 002 031 414) (fourth defendant)
FILE NO:	BS11302 of 2003
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Reference from the Registrar
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	13 April 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 February 2006; further written submissions 22 February and 1 March 2006.
JUDGE:	White J
ORDER:	The reference from the Deputy Registrar should be answered as follows: 1. The defendants are entitled to claim for the work done in the proceeding by solicitors who were not admitted to practise in the State of Queensland by virtue of the provisions of s 55B(4) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). 2. Unnecessary to answer.
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – REMUNERATION – COSTS STATEMENTS – ACTIONS TO RECOVER COSTS – OTHER CASES – N.S.W. solicitors conducting proceedings in Queensland without statutory qualifications – entitlement to recover costs – Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 55B – Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) s 209 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – OPERATION AND EFFECT OF THE COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION – INCONSISTENCY OF LAWS (CONSTITUTION, s 109) – State law regarding legal practitioners – whether Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) s 209 inconsistent with Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 55B *Constitution* (Cth), s 71, s 74(iv), s75(iv), s 109 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 237, s 1037(2) Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 55B, s86 Matrimonial Causes Act 1959 (Cth) *Acts Interpretation Act 1954* (Qld), s 35(1)(b) Arbitration Act 1895 (WA) Legal Practitioners Act 1974 (NT) Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW), Division 3 Legal Profession Amendment (Personal Injury Advertising) Regulation 2003 (NSW) Partnership Act 1891 (Qld) s 5(1) Queensland Law Society Act 1952 (Qld) s 38, s 44, s 48 Supreme Court Act 1867 (Qld), s 38A, s 58 Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld), s 209, s 221 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 691, 703, 685, 710(1), 713, 736, 714 *Bankruptcy Act 1869* (Eng) Bankruptcy Act 1883 (Eng), s 151 Solicitor’s Act 1957 (Eng) In Re A Debtor [1934] 1 Ch 280, considered APLA Ltd v Legal Services Commissioner (NSW) [2005] HCA 44, applied Australian Mutual Provident Society v Goulden (1986) 160 CLR 330, applied Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403, cited De Pardo v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee [2000] FCA 335, applied Elders Trustee and Executor Company Ltd as Executors of the Estate of Howard v Estate of Herbert (1996) 111 NTR 25, discussed Grundmann v Georgeson [2000] QCA 394, cited Gundry v Sainsbury [1910] 1 KB 645, cited In Re Hope (1872) LR 7 Ch App 766, cited Hudgell Yeates & Co v Watson [1978] 1 QB 45, discussed In re…