Frigger v Trenfield (No 12)

The case of Frigger v Trenfield (No 12) involves a dispute regarding the costs associated with legal proceedings between the Frigger family and Trenfield, with the proceedings taking place in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centres on the quantum of costs to be awarded to the first respondent, Trenfield, following the earlier determination of the costs orders in Frigger v Trenfield (No 11). This case concerns the assessment of the costs incurred by Trenfield in the litigation against the Friggers, focusing on the reasonableness and appropriate quantum of those costs. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate amount of costs to be awarded to Trenfield, taking into account the arguments presented by both parties regarding the indemnity principle, the lump sum costs assessment principles, and the applicability of conditional costs agreements under the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA).

The primary legal issue before the court was the assessment of the costs to be awarded to Trenfield. The applicants argued that the costs claimed were excessive and not in line with the indemnity principle, which seeks to provide an indemnity to the successful party for the costs incurred. They contended that the costs should be significantly reduced, proposing specific lower figures based on various factors, including the qualifications of the principal solicitor. Trenfield, on the other hand, argued that the costs claimed were reasonable and necessary, and that the lump sum approach to assessing costs was appropriate. The court also had to consider the impact of the void conditional costs agreement on the recoverability of costs, as well as the reasonableness of the costs claimed in light of the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA).

The court found that the first respondent's legal costs were reasonable and that the lump sum approach to assessing costs was appropriate in this case. The court rejected the applicants' arguments invoking the indemnity principle and their contentions regarding the qualifications of the principal solicitor. While the court found that a modest discount was warranted, it was not appropriate to examine the invoices line by line in the lump sum costs assessment. The court assessed the costs at $406,269 plus disbursements of $16,041.45, inclusive of GST, resulting in a total of $422,310.45. The court also found that despite the void conditional costs agreement, Trenfield was entitled to recover the reasonable costs incurred in the litigation under the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA).

The final orders of the court were that the first applicant is liable for Trenfield's legal costs of the proceeding up to and including 13 June 2019 in the sum of $13,813 (inclusive of GST), and that the first applicant and second applicant are jointly and severally liable for Trenfield's legal costs of the proceeding thereafter in the sum of $392,456 (inclusive of GST), as well as for disbursements in the sum of $16,041.45 (inclusive of GST). Entry of orders is governed by Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.