GARTRELL -v- GIBSON & GIBSON (A FIRM) [2000] WASC 13

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASC 13
Case No:	CIV:1504/1999	Heard:	21 JANUARY 2000
Coram:	WHITE J	Delivered:	1/02/00
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	DARRYL KENNETH GARTRELL GIBSON & GIBSON (A FIRM)
Catchwords:	Costs Solicitors bills Whether served on the plaintiff Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Legal Practitioners Act 1893 s 65(1), s 66, s 68A(d)
Case References:	Nil Bowen Buchbinder Vilensky v Banning, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 960325; 20 June 1996 Cuming Campbell Investments Pty Ltd v Collector of Imposts (Vic) (1938) 60 CLR 741 D'Alessandro v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee (1995) 15 WAR 198 Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 Josephson v Walker (1914) 18 CLR 691 Malleson Stewart Stawell & Nankivell v Williams [1930] VLR 410 Pasmore v Oswaldtwistle Urban District Council [1898] AC 387 Salmar Holdings Pty Ltd v Hornsby Shire Council [1971] 1 NSWLR 192 Stobbart v Mocnaj [1999] WASC 252 Taylor v The Minister [1973] 1 NSWLR 352 Webb v Bateman & Co, unreported; SCt of WA; Franklyn J; Library No 6305; 27 May 1986 Woolf v Snipe (1933) 48 CLR 677

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : GARTRELL -v- GIBSON & GIBSON (A FIRM) [2000] WASC 13 CORAM : WHITE J HEARD : 21 JANUARY 2000 DELIVERED : 1 FEBRUARY 2000 FILE NO/S : CIV 1504 of 1999 BETWEEN : DARRYL KENNETH GARTRELL

Plaintiff

AND

GIBSON & GIBSON (A FIRM)

Defendant

Catchwords:

Costs - Solicitors bills - Whether served on the plaintiff - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Legal Practitioners Act 1893 s 65(1), s 66, s 68A(d)

Result:

Application dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr M L Segler

Defendant : Mr R A H Leclezio

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : E N Stamatiou & Co

Defendant : Gibson & Gibson

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Bowen Buchbinder Vilensky v Banning, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 960325; 20 June 1996
Cuming Campbell Investments Pty Ltd v Collector of Imposts (Vic) (1938) 60 CLR 741
D'Alessandro v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee (1995) 15 WAR 198
Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421
Josephson v Walker (1914) 18 CLR 691
Malleson Stewart Stawell & Nankivell v Williams [1930] VLR 410
Pasmore v Oswaldtwistle Urban District Council [1898] AC 387
Salmar Holdings Pty Ltd v Hornsby Shire Council [1971] 1 NSWLR 192
Stobbart v Mocnaj [1999] WASC 252
Taylor v The Minister [1973] 1 NSWLR 352
Webb v Bateman & Co, unreported; SCt of WA; Franklyn J; Library No 6305; 27 May 1986
Woolf v Snipe (1933) 48 CLR 677

(Page 3)

1 WHITE J: In this matter, the defendant is a firm of solicitors and the plaintiff is a former client of the defendant. The plaintiff makes the application by originating summons, firstly seeking a declaration that the fees…

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 Gartrell v Gibson and Gibson (A Firm) 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: [2000] WASC 13
Decision Date: 1 FEBRUARY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Gartrell, and the defendant, Gibson and Gibson, a firm of solicitors. The primary issue was whether the defendant firm had properly served a solicitor's bill on the plaintiff. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court was required to decide whether the service of the solicitor's bill complied with the relevant legal standards and procedures.

The legal issues at the heart of this case centred on the proper service of legal documents and the implications of non-compliance with service requirements. Specifically, the court needed to ascertain whether the defendant had adhered to the stipulated procedures for serving a solicitor's bill on the plaintiff, and whether any non-compliance affected the enforceability of the bill. The court examined the facts of the case to determine whether the bill was served in a manner consistent with legal protocols.

In its judgment, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented regarding the service of the solicitor's bill. The court found that the service was not in accordance with the required standards, but held that the particular circumstances of the case did not necessitate a departure from the usual rules regarding costs. The court determined that despite the procedural lapse, the overall fairness and justice of the case did not warrant setting aside the solicitor's bill or imposing costs against the defendant. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.