Dennis v Cameron

Case [2007] NSWCA 228

New South Wales


Court of Appeal


CITATION: Dennis v Cameron [2007] NSWCA 228
HEARING DATE(S): 15 August 2007
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 
5 September 2007
JUDGMENT OF: McColl JA at 1; Handley AJA at 2; Hoeben J at 3
DECISION: Appeal dismissed; Appellant pay the costs of the appeal.
CATCHWORDS: Claim by a barrister against solicitor for unpaid fees - original memoranda of fees altered at solicitor's request - whether compliance with sections 192, 194 of the Legal Profession Act 1987 and regulation 22A of the Legal Profession Regulations 1994 - whether barrister's memoranda of fees was "signed" - effect of acceptance by solicitor of unsigned memoranda of fees.
LEGISLATION CITED: Legal Profession Act 1987
Legal Profession Regulations 1994
Solicitors Act 1843 (UK)
CASES CITED: Conder v Silkbard [1999] NSWCA 459
Goodman v J Evan Limited (1954) 1 QB 550
Hogarth v Gye [2002] NSWSC 32 at [25]
Koutsourais v Metledge & Associates [2004] NSWCA 313
Moreton v Copeland (1855) 16 CB 517
Re Gedye (1851) 51 ER 208
Zizza v Seymour (1976) 2 NSWLR 135
PARTIES: Bruce Vernon Dennis - Appellant
Robert William Cameron - Respondent
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40681/2006; DC5480/2005
COUNSEL: Mr J T Johnson - Appellant
Mr DF Rofe QC/Mr AJ Tudehope - Respondent
SOLICITORS: Dennis & Company - Appellant
McLaughlin & Riordan - Respondent
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 5480/2005
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Johnstone DCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 26 September 2006
LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: [2006] NSWDC 32



                          CA 40681/2006
                          DC 5480/2005

                          McCOLL JA
                          HANDLEY AJA
                          HOEBEN J

                          Wednesday, 5 September 2007
Bruce Vernon DENNIS v Robert William CAMERON
JUDGMENT

1 McCOLL JA: I agree with Hoeben J.

2 HANDLEY AJA: I agree with Hoeben J.

3 HOEBEN J:

      Nature of claim
      The respondent (hereafter called “the barrister”) had for some years before 1997 been regularly briefed by the appellant (hereafter called “the solicitor”).

4 In August 1997 the barrister was briefed by the solicitor to advise and appear on behalf of three individuals and a company in the Federal Court of Australia. It was a bankruptcy matter. The barrister duly performed the services for which he was retained including appearing before a Full Bench of the Federal Court, the clients having been unsuccessful at first instance.

5 The legal services were performed by the barrister between 1997 and 2000. The barrister sent to the solicitor four memoranda of fees dated 1 April 1999, 19 May 2000, 28 September 2000 and 24 November 2000. Each memorandum of fees was on the barrister’s letterhead and was accompanied by a covering letter which had been signed by the barrister. Each memorandum of fees included an amount comprising a twenty five percent contingency fee. None of the memoranda made any provision for the payment of interest.

6 Not long after the last memorandum of fees had been sent, the solicitor requested that the barrister forward to him replacement memoranda of fees with the contingency fee deleted. The evidence is unclear as to the…

Continue reading Dennis v Cameron

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dennis v Cameron [2007] NSWCA 228
Case
[2007] NSWCA 228
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Dennis v Cameron*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a claim by a barrister against a solicitor for unpaid fees. The dispute arose from memoranda of fees that had been altered at the solicitor's request, leading to questions about their validity and the barrister's entitlement to payment.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the barrister's memoranda of fees complied with the requirements of sections 192 and 194 of the *Legal Profession Act 1987* (NSW) and regulation 22A of the *Legal Profession Regulations 1994* (NSW). Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the memoranda were sufficiently "signed" for the purposes of the legislation and what the legal effect was of the solicitor's acceptance of unsigned memoranda.

The Court of Appeal held that the memoranda of fees, as presented and altered, did not satisfy the statutory requirements for a valid bill of costs. The alterations made at the solicitor's request meant that the memoranda were not "signed" in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act and Regulations. Consequently, the barrister was not entitled to recover the fees claimed under those memoranda. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed; Appellant pay the costs of the appeal.

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.