Goodman Law Pty Limited v Laloma (No.2)

Goodman Law Pty Limited (the applicant) sought to enforce a costs agreement against Laloma (the respondent). The dispute concerned the enforceability of a costs agreement that had been entered into between the parties, and whether the applicant had breached its duty to the respondent by failing to provide a costs disclosure. The matter came before Judge Manousaridis in the County Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the costs agreement was void or unenforceable due to alleged breaches of the *Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014* (Vic) and the *Legal Profession Uniform General Rules 2015* (Vic) concerning the provision of costs disclosure. Specifically, the court had to determine if the applicant had failed to provide a sufficient costs disclosure, and if so, what the consequences of that failure were for the enforceability of the costs agreement.

Judge Manousaridis found that the applicant had failed to provide a sufficient costs disclosure as required by the relevant legislation. The court reasoned that the disclosure provided was inadequate and did not meet the statutory requirements, rendering the costs agreement voidable at the instance of the respondent. The court applied the principles established in case law concerning the importance of proper costs disclosure in ensuring fairness and transparency in the solicitor-client relationship, noting that a failure to comply with these requirements could have significant consequences for the enforceability of costs agreements.

The court ordered that the costs agreement was void and that the applicant was not entitled to recover costs under that agreement. The applicant was instead entitled to recover costs on a quantum meruit basis, reflecting the reasonable value of the work performed.