Goodman Law Pty Limited v Laloma

Goodman Law Pty Limited (the applicant) sought to enforce a costs agreement against its former client, Laloma (the respondent). The dispute concerned the enforceability of the costs agreement, which Laloma argued was void and unenforceable due to alleged breaches of the *Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW)* (the Uniform Law). The matter came before Judge Manousaridis in the District Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the costs agreement was void and unenforceable under section 176 of the Uniform Law. This section renders a costs agreement void if it contravenes certain provisions of the Uniform Law, specifically those relating to the disclosure of information to clients. The court was required to determine if Goodman Law Pty Limited had failed to comply with its disclosure obligations under the Uniform Law, thereby invalidating the agreement.

Judge Manousaridis found that the costs agreement was not void. The court reasoned that while there may have been some technical deficiencies in the disclosure provided by Goodman Law Pty Limited, these did not amount to a contravention of the Uniform Law that would render the agreement void under section 176. The court applied the principles of contractual interpretation and the relevant provisions of the Uniform Law, concluding that the agreement substantially complied with the disclosure requirements and that the client had not been misled or disadvantaged.

Consequently, the court ordered that the costs agreement was valid and enforceable.