Collier v Rigby Cooke (a firm) - [2004] VSC 488

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 5726 of 2004

ALAN COLLIER	Appellant
v
RIGBY COOKE (a firm)	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Balmford J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 November 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 November 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Collier v Rigby Cooke
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 488

---

Appeal – section 109 Magistrates' Court Act 1989 – costs agreement – solicitor’s costs agreement – whether repudiation of agreement – whether there was evidence on which the Magistrate could have found as he did.
Taylor v Amour & Co Pty Ltd [1962] VR 346 – evidence – “best evidence” – applicability to written transcript of proceedings.
Point not put below Mond v Lipshut [1999] 2 VR 342.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr RM Antill	Michael T Helman
For the Respondent	Mr PW Lithgow	Rigby Cooke

HER HONOUR:

This is an appeal under section 109 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 (“the Magistrates’ Court Act”), which provides that a party to a civil proceeding in the Magistrates’ Court may appeal to this Court, on a question of law, from a final order of the Magistrates’ Court in that proceeding.

It appears that the respondent (“Rigby Cooke”), a firm of solicitors, acted for the appellant (“Mr Collier”) on a building dispute before the Building Appeals Board. In the events that happened, Rigby Cooke brought proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court to recover from Mr Collier the sum of $11,294.09 (later amended to $8,762.61) on account of professional fees and disbursements. This is an appeal from the final order in those proceedings, made on 1 April 2004 by the Magistrates’ Court at Melbourne constituted by Magistrate Macleod. By that order Mr Collier was ordered to pay Rigby Cooke $4,500 with interest of $653.33 and costs of $4,958.00.

On 7 May 2004 Master Wheeler ordered that the question of law shown to be raised by the appeal was:

Did the learned Magistrate err in not finding that the costs agreement capped at $7,000 had been repudiated by the respondent (see inter alia exhibits 9 and 18 within exhibit “AC 5”)?

After the Building Appeals Board delivered its decision, it invited the parties to send in written submissions on the question of costs. Exhibit AC5 is a bundle of documents which were exhibited in the Magistrates’ Court. Exhibit 9 in that bundle is a letter dated 18 November 2002 from Mr Thomas, a partner in Rigby Cooke, to Mr Collier, which reads in part:

As requested, enclosed are itemised bills of the work performed to date. . . .
I refer to our telephone conversation and your email of today. Contrary to your assertion, there is no “agreement of 30 September” as to our fees. As stated in my letter of 29 October, my email of 4 October set out the basis on which I was prepared to continue to act in the matter.
Be that as it may, I…

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 Collier v Rigby Cooke (a firm) 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: [2004] VSC 488
Decision Date: 30 November 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Collier v Rigby Cooke (a firm), the dispute involved the interpretation and application of a costs agreement between a solicitor and a client. The case was heard and determined in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, and the decision was subsequently appealed. The core legal issues revolved around whether the client had repudiated the costs agreement and whether there was sufficient evidence for the Magistrate to make the findings that were made.

The court had to consider whether the client had repudiated the costs agreement, which would affect the enforceability of the agreement. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence presented, specifically whether the Magistrate could rely on a written transcript of the proceedings as the "best evidence" in accordance with established legal principles. The court also took into account whether certain points had been adequately raised and argued below, referencing previous cases such as Mond v Lipshut [1999] 2 VR 342.

The court's reasoning involved a detailed examination of the costs agreement and the surrounding circumstances of its alleged repudiation. The court concluded that there was no clear evidence of repudiation by the client, and thus the costs agreement remained enforceable. Regarding the admissibility of the written transcript of the proceedings, the court found that it constituted the best evidence and could be relied upon by the Magistrate. The appeal was dismissed on the basis that the findings of the Magistrate were supported by the evidence, and the points not raised below did not warrant a different outcome.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Magistrates' Court was upheld. The costs agreement was deemed enforceable, and the client was held liable for the solicitor's costs as per the agreement.

Orders