Connollys Lawyers Pty Ltd v Davis

In the case of Connollys Lawyers Pty Ltd v Davis, the applicant, a legal firm, sought to recover costs from the respondent, who had retained the firm to act as his solicitor in two separate proceedings. Both parties had signed written costs agreements for each proceeding. The respondent had difficulty reading but signed the agreements upon the insistence of the applicant. After the termination of the retainers, the costs in both proceedings exceeded the original estimates. The respondent alleged that the applicant failed to meet its obligations under Part 3.4 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), including by failing to make adequate disclosure. The Magistrates Court granted summary judgment in favour of the applicant, but the respondent appealed to the District Court.

The legal issues before the court included whether the respondent's evidence raised a real defence on the ground that the applicant did not comply with its disclosure obligations under sections 308(1)(c), 314 and 315 of the Act, and whether the District Court judge erred in setting aside the summary judgment. The court found that the respondent's evidence raised a real defence as to the first proceeding but not the second. The court concluded that the District Court judge was correct to set aside the summary judgment and allow the respondent to file an amended defence and application to set aside the costs agreement. The court also held that the respondent's appeal was well-founded and allowed it.

The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal was refused with costs. The costs were to be paid by the applicant to the respondent. The court also set aside the summary judgment and allowed the respondent to file an amended defence and application to set aside the costs agreement. The court held that the District Court judge was correct to allow the respondent's appeal.