Cupo v Anderssen Lawyers - [2015] QSC 202

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Cupo & anor v Anderssen Lawyers [2015] QSC 202

PARTIES:

PAOLO CUPO and ROSA CUPO

(Applicants)

v
ANDERSSEN LAWYERS (A FIRM)

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

No 8126 of 2014

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Civil Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

28 August 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 March 2015; 18 May 2015

JUDGE:

Boddice J

ORDER:

1. I shall hear the parties as to the form of orders and costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – REMUNERATION – TAXATION AND ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – MATTERS RELATING TO BILL – where the Applicants retained the Respondent to act on their behalf in a land resumption compensation application – where the Respondents retained counsel to act on the Applicants’ behalf in relation to the resumption compensation application – where the Respondents also engaged firms expert in property valuation, town planning, traffic consulting and costs consulting – where, at times, the Respondents would include charges for counsel’s fees or expert’s fees in its invoices as disbursements, and at other times, the Respondents would forward invoices for counsel’s fees or experts’ fees directly to the Applicants for payment – where, in the resumption compensation application, the Applicants were awarded $1,250,000.00 in compensation for the value of the land taken and $22,408.48 in costs attributable to disturbance – where the Applicants paid the Respondents approximately $1,040,000.00, of which counsel received $419,661.00 - where the Applicants contend the Respondents charged the Applicant excessive fees, engaged in excessive and/or unnecessary work, and failed to instruct the experts in a cost-effective way – where the Applicant’s costs assessment application was out of time and allegedly improperly constituted – whether the application was properly brought, whether it complied with the statutory requirements as to notice, and whether, in any event, it was appropriate to make the orders sought

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

COUNSEL:

R J Anderson for the Applicants

T W Quinn for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

McBride Legal for the Applicants

Anderssen Lawyers Pty Ltd for the Respondent

BODDICE J: On 28 August 2014, Paolo Cupo and Rosa Cupo (Applicants) applied for an order for the assessment of invoices issued for legal costs and disbursements between 10 April 2008 and 25 February 2014 (costs assessment application). A schedule of the relevant invoices was attached as Schedule A (the Schedule) to the application.
The application named a partnership, Anderssen Lawyers (First Respondent) as the Respondent. The Applicants retained the First Respondent in 2008 to act on their behalf in relation to a land resumption. That entity ceased to exist from 30 June 2011.
On 1 July 2011 an incorporated legal practice, Anderssen Lawyers Pty Ltd (Second Respondent), became the successor to the First Respondent. The Applicants retained the Second Respondent to act on their behalf in the resumption. That entity was joined as the Second respondent to the application by order made…

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.

Continue reading Cupo v Anderssen Lawyers

Details

AGLC: Cupo v Anderssen Lawyers [2015] QSC 202
Case: [2015] QSC 202
Decision Date: 28 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Cupo v Anderssen Lawyers, the Applicants brought an application seeking an assessment of fees charged by the Respondents, Anderssen Lawyers, in relation to a land resumption compensation application. The Applicants claimed that the Respondents charged excessive fees, engaged in unnecessary work, and failed to instruct experts in a cost-effective manner. The court had to determine whether the application was properly brought, if it complied with statutory requirements, and if it was appropriate to grant the orders sought by the Applicants.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the Applicants' costs assessment application was properly brought and whether it complied with the statutory requirements concerning notice. Additionally, the court needed to decide if it was appropriate to make the orders sought by the Applicants, given the circumstances of the case.

The court held that the Applicants had leave to apply for costs assessments in relation to specific invoices listed in the Amended Schedule A, as the invoices in question were not previously assessed by a costs assessor in the context of the current application. The court dismissed the application concerning other invoices not listed. Furthermore, the court declined to order Mr Allan, the retained counsel, to be bound by any assessment, stating that this matter should be determined by the costs assessor. The court also decided to hear the parties regarding the form of orders and costs.

The final orders of the court were to hear the parties regarding the form of orders and costs. This decision allows the Applicants to pursue their claim for costs assessment concerning specific invoices, while other parts of their application were dismissed. The court's ruling provides clarity on the scope of the costs assessment application and the role of the costs assessor in determining further directions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. I shall hear the parties as to the form of orders and costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

It is not in dispute on the application that the Applicants retained the Respondents, or that the Respondents retained Mr Allan to act on behalf of the Applicants. At issue is whether the application is properly brought, whether it complies with the statutory requirements, and whether, in any event, it is appropriate to make the orders sought.Facts On 7 March 2008, pursuant to the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (Qld), the Chief Executive of the Department of Transport and Main Roads issued four Taking of Land Notices for two adjoining blocks of land owned by the Applicants. The Applicants retained the First Respondent to act as their solicitors in relation to the resumption. Upon the incorporation of the Second Respondent, it was retained to act as the Applicants’ solicitors in relation to the resumption. On 10 December 2008, the Applicants lodged a claim for compensation in respect of the resumption. The Applicants lodged an amended claim on 30 September 2011. On 20 March 2012, the Applicants applied to the Land Court for an order for compensation in respect of the resumption. A trial of the resumption compensation application was heard over 11 days (17 – 21 June 2013, 28 – 31 October 2013 and 18 February 2014). The Respondents retained Mr Allan to act on the Applicants’ behalf in relation to the hearing of the resumption compensation application. Mr Allan provided the Respondent with cost estimates on 3 September 2010, 28 February 2011, 12 March 2012, 13 July 2012, 7 November 2012, 17 September 2013 and 14 November 2013. The Respondents also engaged firms expert in property valuation, town planning, traffic consulting and costs consulting. On or about 26 April 2013, the Second Respondent advised the Applicants they would have to engage the experts directly. After that date, the Applicants directly engaged three expert firms. However, the Second Respondent was still responsible for liaising with, issuing directions to, issuing instructions to, and dealing with, these firms. At times, the Respondents would include charges for counsel’s fees or expert’s fees in its invoices as disbursements; at other times, the Respondents would forward the invoices for counsel’s fees or experts’ fees to the Applicants for payment. Even after the Applicants engaged expert firms directly, those firms received instructions from, and forwarded their invoices to, the Second Respondent, not the Applicants. Judgment in the resumption compensation application was delivered on 14 May 2014. The Applicants were awarded $1,250,000.00 in compensation for the value of the land taken and $22,408.48 in costs attributable to disturbance.[1] [1] Cupo v The Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads [2014] QLC 19.Costs agreements On 18 March 2008, the Applicants signed both an initial disclosure statement and an initial costs agreement with the First Respondent. Information as to the hourly rates of the First Respondent’s staff was included as Table A of the initial costs agreement. Information as to other charges payable by the Applicants was included as Table B of the initial costs agreement.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Similarly, the fact some of the costs were assessed by a costs assessor in the course of the litigation is insufficient to justify refusing leave. To the extent invoices which remain in contention were assessed, that assessment was limited in scope and not in the context of the type of costs assessment now sought to be undertaken. Once again, the relevance of this factor is a matter for the costs assessor.Conclusion The Applicants have leave to make application for costs assessments in relation to the invoices numbered 47, 48, 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81, 84, 86, 87, 88, 90, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 101, 102, 105, 106, 111, 112, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 125 and 126 in the Amended Schedule A. The application in respect of the other invoices is dismissed. The Applicants also sought an order that the Second Respondent provide itemised bills. What further directions ought to be made are properly a matter for the determination of the costs assessor. The Respondents also sought an order that Mr Allan be bound by any assessment. Again, that is appropriately a matter for the determination of the costs assessor. I shall hear the parties as to the form of orders and costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Cupo & anor v Anderssen Lawyers [2015] QSC 202
PARTIES:	PAOLO CUPO and ROSA CUPO (Applicants) v ANDERSSEN LAWYERS (A FIRM) (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	No 8126 of 2014
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Civil Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	28 August 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 March 2015; 18 May 2015
JUDGE:	Boddice J
ORDER:	1. I shall hear the parties as to the form of orders and costs.
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – REMUNERATION – TAXATION AND ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – MATTERS RELATING TO BILL – where the Applicants retained the Respondent to act on their behalf in a land resumption compensation application – where the Respondents retained counsel to act on the Applicants’ behalf in relation to the resumption compensation application – where the Respondents also engaged firms expert in property valuation, town planning, traffic consulting and costs consulting – where, at times, the Respondents would include charges for counsel’s fees or expert’s fees in its invoices as disbursements, and at other times, the Respondents would forward invoices for counsel’s fees or experts’ fees directly to the Applicants for payment – where, in the resumption compensation application, the Applicants were awarded $1,250,000.00 in compensation for the value of the land taken and $22,408.48 in costs attributable to disturbance – where the Applicants paid the Respondents approximately $1,040,000.00, of which counsel received $419,661.00 - where the Applicants contend the Respondents charged the Applicant excessive fees, engaged in excessive and/or unnecessary work, and failed to instruct the experts in a cost-effective way – where the Applicant’s costs assessment application was out of time and allegedly improperly constituted – whether the application was properly brought, whether it complied with the statutory requirements as to notice, and whether, in any event, it was appropriate to make the orders sought Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)
COUNSEL:	R J Anderson for the Applicants T W Quinn for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:	McBride Legal for the Applicants Anderssen Lawyers Pty Ltd for the Respondent