Jones v The Owners Strata Plan No. 69008

Link copied
Case Copied 26 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jones v The Owners Strata Plan No. 69008 [2017] NSWDC 430
Hearing dates: 17 November 2017
Date of orders: 17 November 2017
Decision date: 17 November 2017
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:

(1) As no fee agreement governed work done prior to 9 July 2010, and costs had not been assessed by a costs assessor, action in respect of work done prior to 9 July 2010 was not maintainable: Legal Profession Act 2004 s 317;

 

(2) Costs agreement delivered on 9 July 2010 did not govern relationship between the solicitor and his client prior to 9 July 2010: Baynes & Anor v Kalyk [2003] NSWSC 607 applied;

(3) Coburn v Colledge [1897] 1 QB 702 (C.A) distinguished
Catchwords: COSTS – Action by a solicitor to recover costs – Solicitor did work for defendant from February 2009 to 8 July 2010 and rendered a bill – No costs agreement in existence until 9 July 2010 when solicitor commenced doing further work for defendant, after having delivered a costs agreement which could be accepted by conduct – Defendant paid for work covered by fee agreement for work done after 9 July 2010 – Application by defendant for dismissal of claim
Legislation Cited: Interpretation Act 1987
Legal Profession Act 2004
Cases Cited: Baynes & Anor v Kalyk [2003] NSWSC 607
Coburn v Colledge [1897] 1 QB 702 (C.A)
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Ian Jones (Plaintiff)
The Owners Strata Plan No. 69008 (Defendant)
Representation: Solicitors:
In person (Plaintiff)
Adrian Batterby Lawyer (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2016/327009
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

  1. HIS HONOUR: This is the 23rd year in which I shall have intoned the mantra that nothing excites the zeal, the ardour and the passion of the legal profession more than an argument about costs. The plaintiff is a solicitor. He previously acted for the defendant. He first appears to have acted for the defendant in February 2009. On 9 July 2010 the plaintiff rendered to the defendant a memorandum of costs and a tax invoice which he said was "interim". The short statement of work done at the commencement of the memorandum of costs is this.

"To our fees for acting for you in the above matter since about February 2009, including taking instructions, advising you and the strata managing agent (SMA) on many occasions, including particularly about the need to prepare your experts' report asap, preparation of your Application to the CTTT, and several appearances at the CTTT at Parramatta to adjourn the Application, recently having it transferred to the Sydney Supreme Court, attending meetings at the property, many letters and telephone attendances on you, the SMA, your expert Mr Dessaix, the respondents' prior and current solicitors and other, reporting to you, at related attendances, correspondence and work."

The total of the bill including GST was $23,256.82. A detailed breakdown of the work done is set out in an eight-page document which is conveniently annexed to the affidavit of Mr Adrian Batterby,…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jones v The Owners Strata Plan No. 69008 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] NSWDC 430
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jones v The Owners Strata Plan No. 69008 involved a solicitor who sought to recover costs from a defendant, who was represented by Strata Plan No. 69008. The dispute centred on whether the solicitor was entitled to recover costs for legal work performed from February 2009 to 8 July 2010, as well as subsequent work done after the delivery of a costs agreement on 9 July 2010. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, it had to ascertain whether a valid costs agreement existed that governed the work done before 9 July 2010. Secondly, the court needed to establish whether the costs agreement delivered on 9 July 2010 could be considered to apply retrospectively to the work completed prior to that date. These issues were pivotal in determining the enforceability of the costs claim and whether the solicitor was entitled to recover costs for the period in question.

In its reasoning, the court held that no fee agreement governed the work done prior to 9 July 2010, and since the costs had not been assessed by a costs assessor, the action for those costs was not maintainable under the Legal Profession Act 2004. The court also found that the costs agreement delivered on 9 July 2010 did not apply to the work done before that date, following the precedent set in Baynes & Anor v Kalyk [2003] NSWSC 607. The court distinguished the case of Coburn v Colledge [1897] 1 QB 702 (C.A), emphasising that the costs agreement did not retrospectively govern the earlier work.

The court dismissed the solicitor's claim for costs relating to the period before 9 July 2010 and allowed the defendant's application for dismissal of the claim for those costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) As no fee agreement governed work done prior to 9 July 2010, and costs had not been assessed by a costs assessor, action in respect of work done prior to 9 July 2010 was not maintainable: Legal Profession Act 2004 s 317;

(2) Costs agreement delivered on 9 July 2010 did not govern relationship between the solicitor and his client prior to 9 July 2010: Baynes & Anor v Kalyk [2003] NSWSC 607 applied;

(3) Coburn v Colledge [1897] 1 QB 702 (C.A) distinguished

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.