Hanna v Uther Webster and Evans - [2018] NSWSC 465

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Hanna v Uther Webster & Evans [2018] NSWSC 465
Hearing dates: 09 May 2017
Date of orders: 17 April 2018
Decision date: 17 April 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
(1) Summons dismissed;
(2) The plaintiff shall pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to these proceedings.
Catchwords: COSTS – Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW), s 350 – Assessment – Application for extension of time by father of juvenile client – question whether obligation to pay for services – no suggestion that fees unfair or unreasonable – no satisfactory explanation for delay for period ranging from 15 months to 3½ years – time extension refused.
Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW)
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW)
Cases Cited: Harvey v Goodman Law Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 340
Mackowiak v Hagipantelis; Bickhoff v Hagipantelis [2015] NSWSC 1087
White Industries (QLD) Pty Ltd v Flower & Hart (1998) 156 ALR 169; [1998] FCA 806
White Industries (QLD) Pty Ltd v Flower & Hart (1999) 87 FCR 134; [1999] FCA 773
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Samir Hanna (Plaintiff)
Uther Webster & Evans (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
W Cottee (Plaintiff)
S Baron Levi (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Stevens Cottee Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Uther Webster & Evans (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2016/66777

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: By Summons, the plaintiff Samir Hanna, moves the Court for orders under s 350(5) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) (“the 2004 Act”) so that an Application for a Costs Assessment (“the Application”) may be dealt with out of time. The extension is opposed.
Briefly stated, the plaintiff, Samir Hanna is the father of Jason Hanna, a person charged with murder on or about 9 June 2011 and convicted of manslaughter on or about 4 October 2014 and subsequently sentenced. Uther Webster and Evans, an incorporated law practice, (or a partner or employee of the firm) represented Jason Hanna during the course of the proceedings.
On 30 October 2013, Legal Aid was granted to Jason Hanna and, in essence, Samir Hanna submits that, for reasons or grounds identified later in these reasons, he should be granted an extension of time or dispensation to allow an assessment after the expiry of the statutory prescribed period of 12 months.
The plaintiff relies upon his Affidavits sworn 4 April 2016 and 12 July 2016 and the Affidavit of Mr John Bracey, Private Investigator, sworn 11 April 2016.

Grounds of Application

The grounds of the Summons are not precisely identified by the plaintiff. Because the Summons is not the commencement of an appeal, there is no requirement under the Rules to identify the grounds upon which the Summons is sought. Nevertheless there are written submissions and there were oral submissions.
The grounds for the Summons include:

The plaintiff is an unsophisticated client;

The plaintiff placed his faith and trust in the defendant, who or which breached that trust;

The plaintiff was unaware that the memorandum of fees or bills could be…

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 Hanna v Uther Webster and Evans 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: [2018] NSWSC 465
Decision Date: 17 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Hanna v Uther Webster and Evans involved a client seeking to extend the time for payment of legal fees. The father of a juvenile client, Hanna, applied to the court for an extension of time to pay the outstanding legal fees owed to the respondents, Uther Webster and Evans, the law firm in question. The primary focus of the dispute was whether the client was obligated to pay the fees, and if so, whether an extension of time was warranted. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court included determining whether the client was indeed obligated to pay the fees and, if so, whether the application for an extension of time should be granted. The respondents argued that there was no suggestion the fees were unfair or unreasonable, but the applicant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay in payment, which ranged from 15 months to 3½ years. The court had to weigh the obligation of the client to pay against the reasonableness of the delay in seeking an extension.

The court found that the client was obligated to pay the legal fees, as there was no dispute over the fairness or reasonableness of the charges. However, the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in making payment. The court noted that the delay was substantial, with no adequate justification provided. Consequently, the application for an extension of time was refused. The court emphasised that while the obligation to pay for services rendered was clear, the delay in seeking an extension was not adequately explained, leading to the refusal of the application.

The final orders of the court were that the application for an extension of time to pay the legal fees was dismissed, and the client remained obligated to settle the outstanding amount as per the original agreement. The court's decision underscored the importance of timely payment and the need for a satisfactory explanation when seeking extensions, particularly in cases where the delay is significant.

Orders