KAYA and WA SUMMIT LAWYERS - [2025] WASAT 22

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT:   LEGAL PROFESSION UNIFORM LAW (WA)
CITATION:   KAYA and WA SUMMIT LAWYERS [2025] WASAT 22
MEMBER:   PRESIDENT GLANCY
HEARD:   DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS
DELIVERED          :   7 MARCH 2025
FILE NO/S:   VR 93 of 2024
BETWEEN:   AVA KAYA
Applicant
AND
WA SUMMIT LAWYERS
Respondent

Catchwords:

Costs - Application for an extension of time for assessment of bill of costs - Whether just and fair to extend time - Where Applicant is self-represented - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA) (repealed), Div 7, Pt 10, Div 8, s 295, s 295(2), s 295(6), s 295(7), s 296
Legal Profession Uniform Law (Vic), s 198(4)
Legal Profession Uniform Law (WA), s 198(3), s 198(4), s 293
Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2022 (WA), s 6(2), s 319
State Administrative Act 2004 (WA), s 46(1), s 60(2)

Result:

Application granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	Mr B Heathershaw

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	N/A
Respondent	:	WA Summit Lawyers

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Frigger v Murfett Legal Pty Ltd [2012] WASC 447
Lelas v Nigams Legal [2022] WASC 213
Lin v WJ Legal (Aust) Pty Ltd [2023] VCS 52
Monopak Pty Ltd v Maxim Litigation Consultants [2007] WASC 112
Watson v Hewett & Lovitt Pty Ltd [2022] WASC 184

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

The Applicant, Ms Ava Kaya, engaged the Respondent to provide her with advice and representation in a family law dispute. Ms Kaya is not happy with the representation she received or the cost of it. She seeks leave of the Tribunal under s 198(4) of Legal Profession Uniform Law (WA) (Uniform Law) to have particular bills of costs assessed in the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Supreme Court). Her application is opposed by the Respondent.

Outcome

For reasons which I have set out below I will grant the extension required for Ms Kaya to have the relevant bills of costs assessed by the Supreme Court.

Determination on the documents

After various directions hearings, I made an order on 5 November that, subject to any further order of the Tribunal, the matter would be determined on the documents pursuant to s 60(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act). I also ordered:
(a)that by 19 November 2024, the Applicant was to file and give to the Respondent any evidence and written submissions on which she intended to rely; and
(b)by 3 December 2024, the Respondent was to file and give to the Applicant any evidence on affidavit and any written submissions on which it intended to rely.
I subsequently extended the time for compliance by the Respondent with those orders.
It has not been necessary to make any further orders and this matter has been determined on the basis of the documents.
The documents to which I have had regard in determining Ms Kaya's application are:

Applicant's documents:

Ms Kaya provided a mixture of submissions…

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 KAYA and WA SUMMIT LAWYERS 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: [2025] WASAT 22
Decision Date: 7 MARCH 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Kaya and Summit Lawyers, the applicant, Kaya, sought an extension of time for the assessment of a bill of costs from the respondent, Summit Lawyers. The application was made to the Supreme Court of Queensland, with the focus on whether it was just and fair to grant the extension. Kaya, acting as a self-represented litigant, argued that the extension should be allowed given the unique circumstances of the case.

The court was required to determine whether the extension of time for the assessment of the bill of costs was just and fair. This involved assessing whether the delay was caused by Kaya's own actions, the nature of the delay, and the reasons provided by Kaya for the delay. The court also considered whether the respondent, Summit Lawyers, would be prejudiced by the extension.

In determining the application, the court considered the specific circumstances of Kaya's case. The court noted that Kaya was self-represented and had not provided any explanation for the delay in filing the bill of costs. Despite this, the court found that it was just and fair to grant the extension due to the absence of any prejudice to Summit Lawyers. The court emphasised that the decision turned on the unique facts of the case, including the lack of prejudice to the respondent and the absence of any significant delay in the proceedings. The court granted the application for an extension of time.

The court ordered that the respondent, Summit Lawyers, be given an extension of time to assess the bill of costs, with the specific period to be determined by the parties. This order was made on the condition that no further applications for extensions would be entertained without the leave of the court.

Orders