Johnston v Dimos Lawyers

The case of Johnston v Dimos Lawyers presented before the Costs Court of New South Wales involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Johnston, and the defendant, Dimos Lawyers, concerning the validity of a costs agreement and the assessment of costs. Johnston had engaged Dimos Lawyers for legal services, and a costs agreement was entered into. However, Johnston argued that the costs agreement was void due to the defendant's failure to comply with disclosure requirements under the Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014. The court was required to determine whether the costs agreement was indeed void and, if so, to assess the costs on a basis that complied with the legislation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the costs agreement was void because of the defendant's non-compliance with the disclosure obligations set out in sections 174 and 178 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014. Johnston argued that the defendant's failure to provide the necessary information rendered the agreement void. Furthermore, the court had to decide how to assess the costs in light of the void agreement, considering sections 6 and 172 of the same legislation, which provide for the basis of assessment when a costs agreement is not complied with. The court also needed to consider whether any fixed costs provisions applied to the situation.

The court found that the costs agreement was indeed void due to the defendant's failure to comply with the disclosure requirements. Given this finding, the court assessed the costs in accordance with sections 6 and 172 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014. The court determined that the costs should be assessed on a time-based approach, as the parties had not agreed on a different method. The court further held that no fixed costs applied in this instance. The outcome of the case was that the costs agreement was void, and the costs were assessed on a time-based approach, without application of any fixed costs.