Le v Brydens Lawyers Pty Limited - [2017] NSWSC 180

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Le v Brydens Lawyers Pty Limited [2017] NSWSC 180
Hearing dates: 16 February 2017
Date of orders: 06 March 2017
Decision date: 06 March 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Schmidt J
Decision:
(1) Under s 728(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) that the defendant gives the plaintiff a bill of costs in itemised form in respect of the legal services provided to the plaintiff within 42 days of the date of this order;
(2) Under s 350(5) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW), that it is just and fair for the plaintiff’s application for assessment filed on 15 July 2015 (NSWSC matter number 2016/199623) be dealt with by a costs assessor, notwithstanding the expiration of a 12 month period; and
(3) The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of these proceedings, unless the parties approach to be heard within 14 days.

Catchwords: COSTS – request for an itemised bill of costs – provision of itemised bill ordered – construction of section 332A of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) – whether time limit imposed to request an itemised bill – no time limit – leave to pursue a costs assessment out of time – leave granted – application of the transitional provisions of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) – orders sought made – costs
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW)
Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW)
Legal Profession Regulation 1994
Legal Profession Regulation 2005
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW)
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Bermingham v Corrective Services Commission of New South Wales (1988) 15 NSWLR 292
Brown v Firth [2013] NSWSC 677
Bull v Attorney-General (NSW) (1913) 17 CLR 370; [1913] HCA 60
Council of the Law Society of NSW v Pizzinga [2012] NSWADT 211
Dale v Firth [2012] NSWSC 1
Firth v Yang [2014] NSWCA 92
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8
Koon Wing Lau v Calwell (1949) 80 CLR 533; [1949] HCA 65
Legal Services Commissioner v King [2013] QCAT 260
Mackowiak v Hagipantelis; Bickhoff v Hagipantelis [2015] NSWSC 1087
Parker v Comptroller-General of Customs (2009) 83 ALJR 494; [2009] HCA 7
Parramatta City Council v Brickworks Ltd (1972) 128 CLR 1; [1972] HCA 21
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28
Public Transport Commission (NSW) v J Murray-More (NSW) Pty Ltd (1975) 132 CLR 336
R v Young (1999) 46 NSWLR 681; [1999] NSWCCA 166
RHG Mortgage Limited v Rosario Ianni [2015] NSWCA 56
State of New South Wales v Avery (2016) 92 NSWLR 141; [2016] NSWCA 147
Thompson v Goold & Co [1910] AC 409
Zizza v Seymour [1976] 2 NSWLR 135
Texts Cited: Pearce and Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia, (8th ed, 2014, Lexis Nexis)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Tan Thanh Le (Plaintiff)
Brydens Lawyers Pty Limited ACN 160 267 818 trading…

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 Le v Brydens Lawyers Pty Limited 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] NSWSC 180
Decision Date: 06 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Le v Brydens Lawyers Pty Limited involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Le, and the defendant, Brydens Lawyers Pty Limited, a law firm. The plaintiff sought an itemised bill of costs from the defendant. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether there was a time limit imposed on the plaintiff's right to request an itemised bill of costs under section 332A of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW). Additionally, the court needed to determine if the plaintiff's application for a costs assessment could proceed out of time under the transitional provisions of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW).

The court examined the language of section 332A of the Act and concluded that there was no explicit time limit for requesting an itemised bill of costs. The court further held that the plaintiff's application for a costs assessment could proceed out of time, considering the transitional provisions of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW). The court found that the plaintiff's request was made within a reasonable time and was in the interest of justice. Consequently, the court granted leave for the plaintiff to pursue the costs assessment out of time and ordered the defendant to provide an itemised bill of costs. The court also made orders for the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application.

Orders