CGA Law Pty Ltd v Diane Lawyers Pty Ltd

In the case of CGA Law Pty Ltd v Diane Lawyers Pty Ltd, the parties were engaged in a dispute regarding the assessment of costs in civil proceedings under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) ("UCPR"). The primary issue before the court was whether the respondents had filed their application for review of the costs assessment within the stipulated time, considering the procedural errors made by the costs assessor. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the costs assessor had exercised their discretion on a mistaken basis when disallowing certain counsel fees and reducing others.

The court examined the application for review and found that the costs assessor had failed to provide a signed copy of the certificate to the respondents, as required by r 737 UCPR. This oversight meant that the respondents did not receive a valid certificate, thus the 14-day period under r 742(2)(b) UCPR for filing the application did not commence. Consequently, the court held that the respondents' application was timely filed. Furthermore, the court identified that the costs assessor had misunderstood the law when disallowing senior counsel's fees and reducing junior counsel's fees, which was an error in exercising discretion rather than an error of principle. Given the nature and importance of the proceedings, the court found that the engagement of two counsel was justified.

The court also addressed the costs assessor's failure to follow the rules of natural justice by not notifying the parties of external enquiries and not providing an opportunity for submissions on the costs of the assessment. Despite the costs assessor's procedural errors, the court considered whether to interfere with the decision on the costs of the assessment, ultimately deciding that the assessment should be adjusted as it was based on a mistaken factual and legal premise.

The court ordered that the costs assessor's decision be set aside to the extent that it allowed recovery of the fees of Mr Trewavas of counsel, and that the respondents be allowed to recover certain legal fees from the applicants. Additionally, the court varied the costs assessor's decision to allow the respondents to recover a portion of their assessed costs and the costs of the assessment from the applicants. A further hearing was scheduled to determine the exact amount of costs to be paid.