DLA Piper Australia v Triclops Technologies Pty Ltd - [2020] VSC 93

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE
COSTS COURT

S ECI 2019 04502

IN THE MATTER OF:

Section 198 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014

BETWEEN

DLA PIPER AUSTRALIA (A Firm)	Applicant
v
TRICLOPS TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD	Respondent
(ACN 117 350 464)

JUDGE:	Wood AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 February 2020
DATE OF DECISION & REASONS:	16 March 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DLA Piper Australia v Triclops Technologies Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 93

DECISION & REASONS
---

LEGAL COSTS – Scope of retainer – Final bill for legal services – Section 193(2) Legal Profession Uniform Law Act 2014 – Standing of law practice to seek review out of time – Section 198(4) Legal Profession Uniform Law Act 2014

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms L Dawson	DLA Piper Australia
For the Respondent	Mr P Lovell	MNG Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

There was a hearing in this matter on 20 February 2020. At the conclusion I reserved my decision and I now publish my decision and reasons.

On 25 September 2019 the applicant commenced this current proceeding in the Costs Court pursuant to s 198(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Act 2014 (‘Uniform Law’) to assess some of their own bills of costs rendered to the respondent. The Summons describes the relevant bills to be assessed as being dated between 27 February 2017 and 27 September 2018. There are sixteen of these, thirteen of which are unpaid. The unpaid component amounts to $466,121.21. The three bills that fell between these dates that had been paid only total $18,180.27.[1] Thirteen more bills had been previously rendered and dated between 29 February 2016 and 27 February 2017 and they were not sought to be assessed in this proceeding on the basis that those particular bills had been paid.
[1]E.g. Invoices dated 30 April 2018 ($14,397.92), 27 June 2018 ($2,367.75) and 27 September 2018 ($1,414.60).

In relation to the applicant’s bills that are sought to be assessed in this current proceeding all but the last one in time are headed ‘Alleged patent infringement by Lazer Safe Pty Ltd and Pilz GmbH & Co.’ The one last in time, dated 27 September 2018, is headed ‘Appeal of Federal Court decision.’

The applicant commenced proceedings in the County Court on 8 February 2019 to recover the unpaid sum of $466,121.21 referred to in paragraph 2 above. The respondent’s Defence in that proceeding alleged, inter alia, that the applicant had not complied with the Uniform Law. That proceeding is presently stayed by consent pending the outcome of the current proceeding in this Court.

On 22 October 2019 an order was made for the applicant to file and serve an affidavit in relation to any Costs Agreements and compliance with disclosure obligations contained in the Uniform Law by 19 November 2019. In purported compliance with that order the applicant filed an affidavit of Robynne Lyndsay Sanders sworn 28 November 2019. The affidavit exhibits an Engagement…

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 DLA Piper Australia v Triclops Technologies Pty Ltd 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: [2020] VSC 93
Decision Date: 16 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between DLA Piper Australia, a law firm, and Triclops Technologies Pty Ltd, a technology company. The primary contention was whether the law firm had the authority to recover additional legal costs from the client, which were not initially included in the final bill for legal services rendered. The case was heard and determined in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The legal issues central to this case were whether the law firm could recover additional costs from the client that were not included in the final bill, and if the law firm had standing to seek a review out of time. The court had to interpret the relevant provisions of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Act 2014, specifically sections 193(2) and 198(4), to resolve these issues. The primary focus was on the interpretation of the scope of the retainer agreement and the law firm's entitlement to recover costs that were not specified in the final bill.

The court examined the terms of the retainer agreement and found that the law firm's claim for additional costs was not supported by the terms of the agreement. The court held that the law firm did not have the standing to seek a review out of time as per section 198(4) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Act 2014. The court concluded that the law firm's claim was barred by the time limits set out in the Act and that the law firm's request for additional costs was not permissible under the agreement. The court dismissed the law firm's application for additional costs.

The court's final order was that the law firm's application for additional costs was dismissed. The court found that the law firm had not met the requirements to recover the additional costs from the client and that the law firm's request for a review out of time was not permissible under the Act. The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the retainer agreement and the relevant provisions of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Act 2014.

Orders