Edwards v Bray

Case [2011] QCA 72

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Edwards v Bray & Anor  [2011] QCA 72

PARTIES:

DAVID EDWARDS
(applicant)
v
CHRISTOPHER JOHN BRAY
(first respondent)
BEVERLEY LORRAINE BRAY
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 5012 of 2010

DC No 76 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

15 April 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 February 2011

JUDGES:

White JA, Margaret Wilson AJA and Ann Lyons J

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. That the application for leave to appeal be dismissed; and

2. That the applicant to pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the application.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADE – LAWYERS – REMUNERATION – costs agreements – generally – where applicant solicitor retained by the respondents – where applicant delivered itemised account to respondents – where costs assessor appointed by Solicitors Complaints Tribunal – where costs assessment given on 9 May 2006 – where applicant filed a claim for fees in Magistrates Court – where respondents applied for summary judgment – where judgment was entered – where respondents unsuccessfully appealed to the District Court – where applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal – whether a statutory debt came into being on the costs assessment becoming binding pursuant to Queensland Law Society Act 1952 ("QLS Act") s 6ZE(2) – whether QLS Act s 6ZE(2) provides an alternative source of the solicitor’s entitlement to fees or costs – applicable limitation period pursuant to Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld)

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14A
Builders Licensing Act 1971 (NSW)
Civil Justice Reform Act 1998 (Qld)
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 267
District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3)
Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 767
Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 10(1)(a), s 10(1)(d)
Queensland Law Society Act 1952 (Qld) Reprint 4G, s 6ZA, s 6ZC, s 6ZD, s 6ZE, s 6ZF, s 48, s 48A, s 48J, s 48L

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 293

400 Lonsdale Nominees Pty Ltd v Southern Cross Airlines Ltd (in liq) (1993) 10 ACSR 739, cited
Bluebottle UK Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2007) 232 CLR 598; [2007] HCA 54, cited
Builders Licensing Board v Inglis (1985) 1 NSWLR 592, cited
Coburn v Colledge [1897] 1 QB 702, cited
Do Carmo v Ford Excavations Pty Ltd (1984) 154 CLR 234, [1984] HCA 17, cited
Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232; [1964] EWCA Civ 5,cited
Mallinson v Scottish Australian Investment Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 66; [1920] HCA 51, cited
Pickering v McArthur[2005] QCA 294, cited
R v Bates [1982] 2 NSWLR 894, cited
Rawley v Rawley (1876) 1 QBD 460, cited
Re Devy; Ex parte BBC Hardware Limited (1996) 67 FCR 355, cited
Re Feez Ruthning’s Bill of Costs [1989] 1 Qd R…

Continue reading Edwards v Bray

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Edwards v Bray [2011] QCA 72
Case
[2011] QCA 72
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Edwards v Bray involved a dispute between the applicant, Edwards, a solicitor, and the respondents, Bray, concerning the fees owed to the applicant for legal services rendered. The dispute was heard and determined by the Court of Appeal in Queensland. The central issue was whether a statutory debt arose upon the costs assessment becoming binding, pursuant to section 6ZE(2) of the Queensland Law Society Act 1952, and whether section 6ZE(2) of the Act provides an alternative source of the solicitor’s entitlement to fees or costs. Additionally, the court had to consider the applicable limitation period under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld).

The court examined the nature of the costs agreement and whether the statutory debt arose upon the costs assessment becoming binding. The applicant had been retained by the respondents and delivered an itemised account. A costs assessor appointed by the Solicitors Complaints Tribunal made an assessment, which became binding on 9 May 2006. The applicant subsequently filed a claim for fees in the Magistrates Court. The respondents applied for summary judgment, which was granted, and they subsequently appealed to the District Court, where their appeal was unsuccessful. The applicant then sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal found that the statutory debt did not arise upon the costs assessment becoming binding, as per section 6ZE(2) of the QLS Act. The court held that section 6ZE(2) does not provide an alternative source of the solicitor’s entitlement to fees or costs. Furthermore, the court determined that the limitation period under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) applied to the applicant’s claim. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the application for leave to appeal be dismissed; and

2. That the applicant to pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the application.

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.