Legal Research
Cases
GLS v Goodman Group Pty Ltd

GLS v Goodman Group Pty Ltd

Case [2015] VSC 627 12 November 2015

Appeal

Costs

Admissibility of Evidence

Agency

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COSTS COURT

S CI 2014 04206

GLS	Appellant
v
GOODMAN GROUP PTY LTD t/a GOODMAN GROUP LAWYERS	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	MACAULAY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 June 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 November 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	GLS v Goodman Group Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 627
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	GLS v Goodman Group Pty Ltd t/as Goodman Group Lawyers (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Woods AsJ, 1 April 2015)

---

COSTS AGREEMENT — Solicitor and client — Appeal from decision of an associate judge constituting Costs Court — Whether payment of a discounted amount of costs for withdrawal of caveat and return of files amounted to an accord and satisfaction — Whether payment of discounted sum constituted a ‘costs agreement’ and was void due to s 3.4.31 Legal Profession Act 2004 (Vic) (‘the Act’) — Accord and satisfaction not the making of a ‘costs agreement’— Beba Enterprises Pty Ltd v Gadens Lawyers (2013) 41 VR 590 applied — ss 3.4.26(5), 3.4.48A of the Act — Grounds of appeal dismissed.

EVIDENCE — Whether reasonably open for the associate judge to conclude there had been an accord and satisfaction in light of alleged phone call prior to payment — Associate judge did not conclude conversation did not occur — No error in reasoning — Grounds of appeal dismissed.

AGENCY — Whether the applicant’s conveyancer was her agent with authority to bind applicant — Not raised before associate judge — Ample evidence of acting with applicant’s ostensible authority — No error in associate judge not expressly making a finding of ostensible authority — Grounds of appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr S Warne	Gary March Legal
For the Defendant	Ms S Cherry	Debra Paver Costs

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1

Background......................................................................................................................................... 2

Associate judge’s findings and reasoning..................................................................................... 3

Grounds of Appeal............................................................................................................................ 7

Issue 1: The evidence issue.............................................................................................................. 9

Issue 2: The agency issue................................................................................................................ 12

Issue 3: The contracting out issue................................................................................................ 15

Conclusion and disposition........................................................................................................... 19

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Goodman Group Lawyers (‘Goodman’) charged their client, GLS,[1] around $173,000 in legal fees and disbursements for legal services rendered over a period of nearly 14 months between July 2012 and August 2013. Those services primarily related to litigation at the Victorian Civil and Appeals Tribunal, and an appeal in this court, concerning the sexual harassment of GLS in her workplace. A costs agreement was in place, and Goodman took a charge over GLS’s house, secured by a caveat, for payment of the legal costs incurred. By October 2013 GLS had paid the majority of the costs billed: an amount of $58,749 was outstanding.
[1]GLS – name anonymised due to privacy considerations flowing from nature of the proceeding in which Goodman Lawyers acted for her.

After GLS paid Goodman a discounted proportion of the outstanding fees on 24 October 2013, and her files were returned to her and the caveat was withdrawn, she applied…

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.

Continue reading GLS v Goodman Group Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: GLS v Goodman Group Pty Ltd [2015] VSC 627
Case: [2015] VSC 627
Decision Date: 12 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of GLS versus Goodman Group Pty Ltd, the court was asked to consider an appeal from a decision of an associate judge that constituted the Costs Court. The central dispute revolved around whether the payment of a discounted amount of costs for the withdrawal of a caveat and the return of files constituted an accord and satisfaction. Additionally, the court had to determine if the payment of this discounted sum constituted a ‘costs agreement’ and whether it was void under section 3.4.31 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (Vic). The matter also involved the question of whether it was reasonably open for the associate judge to conclude there had been an accord and satisfaction in light of an alleged phone call prior to the payment. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the applicant’s conveyancer was her agent with authority to bind her.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the payment of a discounted amount of costs constituted an accord and satisfaction, thereby negating the making of a ‘costs agreement’ which would render it void under section 3.4.31 of the Act. The court also had to examine if the associate judge's conclusion on the accord and satisfaction was reasonably open, given the alleged prior phone call. Lastly, the court needed to determine if the applicant’s conveyancer had the authority to act on her behalf. The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles of accord and satisfaction as well as agency, with specific reference to Beba Enterprises Pty Ltd v Gadens Lawyers (2013) 41 VR 590. The court found that the associate judge did not make an error in reasoning and that there was ample evidence of the conveyancer acting with ostensible authority.

The court dismissed the grounds of appeal, holding that the payment of the discounted sum did not constitute an accord and satisfaction as per the legal precedent in Beba Enterprises Pty Ltd v Gadens Lawyers. The court concluded that the associate judge’s reasoning was sound and that there was no error in determining that an accord and satisfaction had occurred based on the evidence presented. Furthermore, the court found no error in the associate judge not expressly making a finding of ostensible authority, given that the conveyancer had acted within the scope of the applicant’s authority. As a result, the appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

Orders