Hegarty v Keogh

In the matter of Hegarty v Keogh, the applicants, Mr Hegarty and Mr Borick, sought payment of professional fees from the respondent, Mr Keogh, who had received compensation following his release from prison. The applicants argued that they were entitled to payment of their fees as per their retainer agreement. The respondent, however, contested the claim, arguing that there was no enforceable agreement between the parties. The case was heard in the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAAT), where the respondent sought summary judgment, dismissal, or striking out of the applicants’ statement of claim. The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicants had a reasonable basis for prosecuting their claim for professional fees.

The court examined the evidence presented by the applicants, which included their standard terms of engagement, a schedule of work performed, and a letter from Mr Hegarty to Mr Keogh. The applicants argued that they had a valid retainer agreement and had performed services for Mr Keogh. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that there was no enforceable agreement and that the applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claim. The court noted that the applicants' standard terms of engagement required payment of fees as they accrued, and that the retainer agreement was not explicitly conditional on the respondent receiving compensation. However, the court also acknowledged that Mr Hegarty had stated that he would await payment until the finalisation of the matter and receipt of compensation by the respondent.

The court concluded that there was a reasonable basis for the applicants’ claim, as the existence of a retainer and the performance of services were not in dispute. The court held that it would be unjust to deny the applicants any remuneration for the work they had done. Consequently, the court dismissed the respondent's application for summary judgment, dismissal, or striking out of the applicants’ statement of claim. The case proceeded to trial to determine the terms of the retainer and the amount of fees owed to the applicants. This decision underscores the importance of clear retainer agreements and the need for both parties to understand the terms of their professional relationship.