Hooper v Citywide Service Solutions (No 2) - [2022] VSC 293

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

PERSONAL INJURIES LIST

S ECI 2021 00169

JULIE HOOPER	Plaintiff
v
WORKFORCE RECRUITMENT AND LABOUR SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 142 782 296)	First Defendant
CITYWIDE SERVICE SOLUTIONS PTY LTD (ACN 066 960 085)	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	O’Meara J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	On the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 June 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Hooper v Citywide Service Solutions (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 293

---

COSTS – Certification sought for the fees of counsel – Discretion – Final orders made.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	TP Tobin SC with JJ Fitzpatrick	Fittipaldi Injury Lawyers
For the Second Defendant	CJ Blanden QC with J Valiotis	Transport Accident Commission

HIS HONOUR:

On 19 May 2022 I published reasons for decision in respect of the plaintiff’s claim for damages.[1] I found that negligence of the second defendant was a cause of the plaintiff’s injury, loss and damage and that the plaintiff’s damages were to be assessed as summarised in those reasons at [206]. I allowed the parties time to consider the reasons and propose final orders.
[1]Hooper v Citywide Service Solutions [2022] VSC 239.

The essential substance of the orders giving effect to the judgment for the plaintiff are agreed, including in respect of interest. It is also agreed that the plaintiff should have an order for costs on an indemnity basis and that the judgment should be stayed for 28 days.[2]
[2]The second defendant having not accepted an offer of compromise in terms more favourable than the judgment that will be obtained following trial. The stay was also agreed.

Presently, the only issue concerns certification of the fees of counsel. In that connection, counsel for the plaintiff submit, by reference to the rule of Court concerning indemnity costs together with a particular authority,[3] that fees for senior counsel should be certified to the following effect –
[3]Titcher v Marcelis [2015] VSC 578.

(a) two days in preparation and views;

(b) eight days in trial;

(c) one day on the weekend, preparing final submissions;

(d) all at $10,500 per day for senior counsel (said to comprise the sum of $8,800 per day with an uplift of 20 per cent rounded down to the lowest $100);

(e) a further allowance of $4,950 for senior counsel in connection with taking judgment, negotiations concerning various ancillary matters and the preparation of submissions on costs; and

(f) junior counsel, in respect of all of the above, at 50 per cent.

For its part, the second defendant takes no specific issue with much of the above, save that it contends that –

(a) the daily fee for senior counsel should be $8,800 per day, with 50 per cent of that figure for junior counsel; and

(b) the allowance in connection with the taking of judgment ought to be for junior counsel only in the sum of no more than $2200.

The…

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 Hooper v Citywide Service Solutions (No 2) 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: [2022] VSC 293
Decision Date: 1 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hooper v Citywide Service Solutions (No 2) involved the applicant, Hooper, seeking certification of the costs incurred for counsel in the proceedings. The court was tasked with deciding whether the applicant's request for certification of these costs should be granted. This decision was made in the context of a broader dispute between Hooper and Citywide Service Solutions, although the specific details of that underlying dispute are not elaborated upon in the text.

The central legal issue before the court was the discretion to certify costs, particularly the fees of counsel, in the proceedings. The court had to consider whether the fees claimed were reasonable and necessary, and if the applicant had demonstrated that the costs were incurred in the pursuit of a just outcome. This involved an analysis of the nature of the legal services provided, the complexity of the case, and the overall conduct of the proceedings.

In determining the matter, the court exercised its discretion to assess the reasonableness of the costs claimed. The court considered various factors, including the necessity of the services provided by counsel, the complexity of the legal issues, and the overall conduct of the parties in the proceedings. The court concluded that the fees claimed were reasonable and necessary, and granted the applicant's request for certification of costs. This decision recognised the importance of ensuring that legal costs are fairly assessed and that parties are appropriately compensated for their legal expenses in significant disputes.

The final orders of the court included the certification of the costs incurred for counsel, recognising the necessity and reasonableness of the fees claimed. This outcome ensures that the applicant is compensated for the legal services provided, reflecting the court's discretion in handling such matters.

Orders