Hartnett Lawyers v Chapman - [2017] QDC 110

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hartnett Lawyers v Chapman [2017] QDC 110

PARTIES:

HARTNETT LAWYERS (ABN 31132039446)

Appellant

v

IVA CHAPMAN

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

D311 of 2015

DIVISION:

Civil Jurisdiction

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Southport

DELIVERED ON:

21 March 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATE:

5 August 2016

JUDGE:

McGinness DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal allowed to the extent of varying paragraph 1 of the order of the Magistrate made 21 October 2015 by inserting after the word “assessed” the words: “on the basis that the costs agreement between the parties is void”, and by inserting paragraph 1A as follows: “The respondent Hartnett Lawyers prepare file and serve on the applicant Iva Chapman an itemised bill for each of the invoices in paragraph 1 on or before Thursday 20 April 2017.”

The appeal be otherwise dismissed.

The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal to be assessed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL COSTS – ASSESSMENT – INTERPRETATION OF COSTS AGREEMENTS – WHETHER CONDITIONAL COSTS AGREEMENT – WHETHER BILLS SUFFICIENTLY ITEMISED

Sunba v Hartnett Lawyers [2014] QDC 34
Paroz v Clifford Gouldson Lawyers [2012] QDC 151
Casey v Quabba [2007] 1 Qd R 297
Turner v Mitchells Solicitors [2011] QDC 61
Watson v Scott [2015] QCA 267
Lupker v Shine Lawyers Pty Ltd [2015] QSC 278
Frost v Miller (2015) QSC 206
Underwood Son and Piper v Lewis [1894] 2 QB 306
Cachia v Isaacs (1985) 2 NSWLR 366
Legal Services Commission v Baker (No.2) [2006] 2 Qd R 249
Pott v Clayton Utz [2012] QSC 167
Tabtill No 2 Pty Ltd & Ors v DLA Phillips Fox [2012] QSC 115
Clayton Utz Lawyers v P&W Enterprises Pty Ltd (2011) QDC 5

Legal Profession Act 2007, Sections 300, 315, 323, 324, 328, 332, 335, 341, 431
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, Rules 717, 743C, 743G, 743I
Magistrates Court Act 1921 (Qld) Section 45
Civil Proceedings Act 2011
Costs Act 1867 (Qld) Section 22
District Court of Queensland Act 1967 Section 68
Queensland Law Society Act 1952 Section 48F

COUNSEL:

S. J. Carius for the appellant

R. Dickson for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Hartnett Lawyers for the appellant

BDG Lawyers for the respondent

Background

On 17 September 2014 the appellant forwarded to the respondent a letter and an initial Costs Agreement for work to be done in relation to the Will of the respondent’s late husband and his estate.[1] The respondent returned the signed initial Costs Agreement on 18 September 2014. The respondent affirms she was never informed by the appellant that she should seek independent legal advice in relation to the initial Costs Agreement[2].

[1] Affidavit of Iva Chapman sworn 14 September 2015, paras 3 and 9, Ex “IC-1”.
[2] Affidavit of Iva Chapman sworn 2 October 2015, paras 4 and 5

On 24 September 2014 the appellant forwarded to the respondent a further letter and a Costs Agreement – Variation which the respondent signed and returned.[3] The respondent affirms she was never informed by the appellant to seek independent legal advice in relation…

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 Hartnett Lawyers v Chapman 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: [2017] QDC 110
Decision Date: 21 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hartnett Lawyers v Chapman involved the appellant, Hartnett Lawyers, and the respondent, Iva Chapman. The central issue was the assessment of costs, specifically the interpretation of the costs agreements between the parties and whether the costs agreement was a conditional one, as well as whether the bills were sufficiently itemised. This case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court required it to determine whether the costs agreement between the parties was conditional and whether the bills provided by the appellant were sufficiently itemised. The court needed to assess the validity of the costs agreement and the adequacy of the billing to ensure transparency and fairness in the cost recovery process.

The court found that the costs agreement between Hartnett Lawyers and Chapman was conditional, rendering it void. The court also determined that the bills provided by the appellant were not sufficiently itemised, as they did not clearly detail the services provided or the time spent on each task. This lack of clarity made it difficult for the respondent to understand and challenge the costs. Consequently, the appeal was allowed to the extent of varying the initial order by declaring the costs agreement void and requiring the appellant to prepare and serve an itemised bill for each invoice. The appeal was otherwise dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed to the extent of varying paragraph 1 of the order of the Magistrate made 21 October 2015 by inserting after the word “assessed” the words: “on the basis that the costs agreement between the parties is void”, and by inserting paragraph 1A as follows: “The respondent Hartnett Lawyers prepare file and serve on the applicant Iva Chapman an itemised bill for each of the invoices in paragraph 1 on or before Thursday 20 April 2017.”

The appeal be otherwise dismissed.

The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal to be assessed.

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.

CITATION:	Hartnett Lawyers v Chapman [2017] QDC 110
PARTIES:	HARTNETT LAWYERS (ABN 31132039446) Appellant v IVA CHAPMAN Respondent
FILE NO/S:	D311 of 2015
DIVISION:	Civil Jurisdiction
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court, Southport
DELIVERED ON:	21 March 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Southport
HEARING DATE:	5 August 2016
JUDGE:	McGinness DCJ
ORDER:	Appeal allowed to the extent of varying paragraph 1 of the order of the Magistrate made 21 October 2015 by inserting after the word “assessed” the words: “on the basis that the costs agreement between the parties is void”, and by inserting paragraph 1A as follows: “The respondent Hartnett Lawyers prepare file and serve on the applicant Iva Chapman an itemised bill for each of the invoices in paragraph 1 on or before Thursday 20 April 2017.” The appeal be otherwise dismissed. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal to be assessed.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL COSTS – ASSESSMENT – INTERPRETATION OF COSTS AGREEMENTS – WHETHER CONDITIONAL COSTS AGREEMENT – WHETHER BILLS SUFFICIENTLY ITEMISED Sunba v Hartnett Lawyers [2014] QDC 34 Paroz v Clifford Gouldson Lawyers [2012] QDC 151 Casey v Quabba [2007] 1 Qd R 297 Turner v Mitchells Solicitors [2011] QDC 61 Watson v Scott [2015] QCA 267 Lupker v Shine Lawyers Pty Ltd [2015] QSC 278 Frost v Miller (2015) QSC 206 Underwood Son and Piper v Lewis [1894] 2 QB 306 Cachia v Isaacs (1985) 2 NSWLR 366 Legal Services Commission v Baker (No.2) [2006] 2 Qd R 249 Pott v Clayton Utz [2012] QSC 167 Tabtill No 2 Pty Ltd & Ors v DLA Phillips Fox [2012] QSC 115 Clayton Utz Lawyers v P&W Enterprises Pty Ltd (2011) QDC 5
Legal Profession Act 2007, Sections 300, 315, 323, 324, 328, 332, 335, 341, 431 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, Rules 717, 743C, 743G, 743I Magistrates Court Act 1921 (Qld) Section 45 Civil Proceedings Act 2011 Costs Act 1867 (Qld) Section 22 District Court of Queensland Act 1967 Section 68 Queensland Law Society Act 1952 Section 48F
COUNSEL:	S. J. Carius for the appellant R. Dickson for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Hartnett Lawyers for the appellant BDG Lawyers for the respondent