Hodges v Sathyanparamatheva

Local Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Hodges v Sathyanparamatheva [2019] NSWLC 8

Hearing dates:

13 June and 12 August 2019

Date of orders:

14 October 2019

Decision date:

14 October 2019

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Before:

Huntsman LCM

Decision:

The proceedings subject of the Statement of Claim may not be commenced given the provisions of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW).

Catchwords:

COSTS – Solicitor/ Client – Costs agreement – Bill of costs - Recovery of legal bill of costs issued by solicitor to client – Statutory requirements – Effect of non-compliance with statutory requirements

Legislation Cited:

Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014 (NSW) ss 3, 6, 169, 189, 192, 194

Legal Profession Uniform Regulations 2015 (NSW)

Legal Profession Uniform General Rules 2015 (NSW) r 73

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 63

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 36.15

Cases Cited:

Frontier Law Group Pty Ltd v Barkman [2016] NSWSC 1542

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Stephen Hodges (plaintiff)
Praveena Sathyanparamatheva (first defendant)
Sathyanparamatheva Paramanirupan (second defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
Mr Flaherty for the defendants

Solicitors:
Mr Stephen Hodges for the plaintiff (in person and as solicitor)
Markhan Geikie Farrugia, for first defendant

File Number(s):

2018/00328407

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

Background

1. The plaintiff, Stephen Hodges, filed a Statement of Claim seeking legal costs said to be owed to him by the first and second defendants, who were husband and wife. The particulars in the Statement of Claim included that on 7 June 2018 the defendants retained the plaintiff as their solicitor, and that the defendants agreed to pay costs to the plaintiff, as set out in a written cost agreement dated October 2017. The plaintiff states that the plaintiff undertook work for the defendants, as particularised in tax invoices dated 6 July 2018, 11 July 2018, 3 August 2018 and 17 August 2018. It is stated that those amounts remain outstanding and total $18,161. The total claim including filing and service fees is $18,688.28.

2. The background to the matter includes that the plaintiff was engaged by the first defendant in about October 2017, to act for the first and second defendant, in a dispute concerning a joint venture agreement. There had been, and was, litigation in the Supreme Court and a settlement deed in relation to the joint venture dispute to which the defendants were parties.

3. In or about October 2017, Hodges Legal (the evidence indicates that the plaintiff Stephen Hodges is a sole practitioner trading as Hodges Legal) agreed to act in those proceedings, and sent a costs agreement to the first and second defendants. The cost agreement had a defect, in that the named client in the cost agreement was the plaintiff in the joint venture agreement which was subject of the Supreme Court legal proceedings, rather than the first and second defendants. However the cost agreement set out terms of the retainer and the parties acted in furtherance of that agreement, in that the first defendant paid some monies into trust and the plaintiff commenced to act as…