Chapman v Harris (No 2)

Case [2019] QDC 78

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: 

Chapman v Harris (No 2) [2019] QDC 78 

PARTIES:

SHAYE CHAPMAN
(plaintiff)

v

KATRINA JUNE HARRIS
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

D2111/2018; S9553/2014

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Civil action

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 May 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 May 2019

JUDGE:

Judge McGill SC

ORDER:

Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.  On the counterclaim, judgment that the plaintiff pay the defendant $61,919.05 including $582.28 interest by statute.  Order that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of the review, including the costs reserved on 9 May 2018 and 17 September 2018, and, if they were not included in the costs of the costs assessment, the costs dealt with on 22 May 2015 by McMurdo J.  Otherwise there be no order as to the costs of the claim or of the counterclaim.  Order that the balance of the money held on trust by Mr James Sotiri Michos pursuant to the undertaking by him to the plaintiff dated 8 April 2015 (together with accretions if any) be paid to the solicitors for the defendant. 

CATCHWORDS:

COSTS – Solicitor and client – costs agreements – interest payable under the agreements – costs assessed under the Act – effect of assessment – set off of costs of assessment.

COSTS – Solicitor and client – proceeding to recover unpaid costs – order for assessment – costs of assessment – costs of review of assessment – costs of proceeding. 

Legal Profession Act 2007 s 342.

UCPR r 737.

Burdick v Garrick (1870) LR 5 Ch App 233 – cited.
Chiropractic Board of Australia v Jamieson (No 2) [2013] QSC 111 – considered.
Civil Mining and Construction Pty Ltd v Wiggins Island Coal Export Terminal Pty Ltd (No 3) [2018] QSC 60 – distinguished.
Cook’s Constructions Pty Ltd v Stork Food Systems Australia Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 220 – cited.
Re Crouch & Lyndon’s Bill of Costs [1998] 2 Qd R 228 – considered.
Curtin v Meadlow Holdings Pty Ltd [2001] QCA 145 – cited.
Re Gould [1992] 2 Qd R 377 – considered.
Hunt v R M Douglas (Roofing) Ltd [1990] 1 AC 398 – cited.
J & D Rigging Pty Ltd v Agripower Australia Ltd [2014] QCA 23 – applied.
Johns Perry Industries Pty Ltd v International Rigging (Aust) Pty Ltd [1988] 2 Qd R 556 – cited.
Leonardi v Payne [2017] QSC 319 – cited.
McQueen v Mount Isa Mines Ltd [2018] 3 Qd R 1 – cited.
Ryan v Worthington [2016] QCA 128 – cited.
Watson & Anor v Ward [2013] QCA 393 – cited.
Wright v Southwood (1827) 1 Y&J 526; 148 ER 779 – considered.

COUNSEL:

MP Amerena for the plaintiff

SM Gerber for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

The plaintiff was self-represented

Sambrook Grant for the defendant

  1. This matter came before me earlier this year as a review of a costs assessment under the Legal Profession Act 2007. On that occasion I dealt with various challenges to the decisions of the costs assessor, and made some…

Continue reading Chapman v Harris (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Chapman v Harris (No 2) [2019] QDC 78
Case
[2019] QDC 78
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chapman v Harris (No 2) involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Chapman, and the defendant, Harris, concerning costs associated with legal proceedings. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Chapman sought to recover unpaid legal costs from Harris, while Harris counterclaimed for the costs he had incurred in defending against Chapman's claim. The dispute extended to the interest rates applicable under the respective costs agreements, and the costs incurred in the assessment and review processes.

The court was tasked with determining the applicable interest rates under the costs agreements, assessing the costs incurred in the review and assessment processes, and deciding whether these costs were payable by Chapman. The court had to consider whether the statutory interest applied to the costs and if the costs of the assessment and review processes could be set off against the principal claims for costs.

The court ruled that Chapman's claim for costs was dismissed, and judgment was entered in favour of Harris on the counterclaim. Harris was awarded $61,919.05, including statutory interest of $582.28. The court ordered Chapman to pay Harris's costs of the review, including certain reserved costs, and any additional costs not included in the original assessment. The court also directed that the remaining funds held by Mr James Sotiri Michos be paid to Harris's solicitors. The court made no order regarding the costs of the original claim or counterclaim beyond what was specified.

This decision highlights the importance of clear costs agreements and the potential financial implications of unsuccessful cost recovery claims. The court's reasoning focused on the specific terms of the costs agreements and the statutory provisions governing interest and costs assessment. The final orders reflect the court's determination on the liability for costs and the distribution of remaining funds held in trust.

Orders

Orders of the court

Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed. On the counterclaim, judgment that the plaintiff pay the defendant $61,919.05 including $582.28 interest by statute. Order that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of the review, including the costs reserved on 9 May 2018 and 17 September 2018, and, if they were not included in the costs of the costs assessment, the costs dealt with on 22 May 2015 by McMurdo J. Otherwise there be no order as to the costs of the claim or of the counterclaim. Order that the balance of the money held on trust by Mr James Sotiri Michos pursuant to the undertaking by him to the plaintiff dated 8 April 2015 (together with accretions if any) be paid to the solicitors for the defendant.

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.