Kasmeridis v Mcnamara Business & Property Law

Kasmeridis sought to have an agreement regarding legal costs set aside, which had been made between the solicitor and the client, the firm of Mcnamara Business & Property Law. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred around the fairness and reasonableness of the agreement under section 42(7) of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981. The primary legal issue was whether the agreement for costs to be payable on a time basis was fair and reasonable.

The court examined whether it was reasonable for the solicitor not to explain to the client that other lawyers would likely have done the work for less, and not to explain that the client was unlikely to recover all the costs charged if a party and party order was made in their favour. Furthermore, the court considered whether it was reasonable for the agreement to allow the full rate for an experienced solicitor to be charged for all work done on the matter by a junior solicitor. The court found that the agreement was unreasonable on these grounds. It concluded that there was no proper basis to vary the agreement, and therefore set the agreement aside.

The court’s reasoning was based on the need for transparency and fairness in the agreement between a solicitor and a client. It found that the lack of explanation regarding the potential for lower costs and the likelihood of cost recovery were significant factors in determining the reasonableness of the agreement. Additionally, the court held that charging the full rate for an experienced solicitor for work done by a junior solicitor was unreasonable. Consequently, the agreement was set aside, and the matter was returned to the parties for further negotiation.