Legal Services Commissioner v Cooper

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Cooper [2017] QCAT 151

PARTIES:

Legal Services Commissioner
(Applicant)

v

Adam Karl Hope Cooper

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR032-15

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice DG Thomas, President
Assisted by:
Mr Ken Horsley (Legal panel member)

Dr Margaret Steinberg AM (Lay panel member)

DELIVERED ON:

25 May 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.    The parties must endeavour to agree the identity of a costs assessor (who is appointed under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 743L and who is willing to accept the appointment) and by 16 June 2017 notify the Tribunal of the agreed costs assessor.

2.    Following receipt of that notification, or if the parties are unable to agree on the name of a costs assessor, the Tribunal will, after 16 June 2017, appoint a costs assessor, pursuant to Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2007 (Qld) Rule 87, to assess the costs.

CATCHWORDS:

COSTS – ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – where respondent found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct – where respondent consented to order paying applicant’s costs – where respondent submitted cooperation with investigations and efficient progression of the matter justified order fixing costs  – where applicant submitted costs should be assessed – whether assessment of costs reconcilable with indemnity costs principle – whether Tribunal able to fix costs based on the information provided by the parties

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) s 462
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 32, 100, 107
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld) r 87

Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403, 410
Environmental Protection Authority v Taylor Woodrow (Aust) Pty Ltd (1997) 97 LGERA 368
King v King [2012] QCA 81
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534
Legal Services Commissioner v Cooper [2016] QCAT 122
Legal Services Commissioner v Stower [2015] QCAT 64.
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The Tribunal found that the practitioner’s conduct was categorised as unsatisfactory professional conduct and ordered that the practitioner be publicly reprimanded and pay a fine in the sum of $2,500.[1] The Tribunal allowed the parties the opportunity to make additional written submissions with respect to costs.

   [1]Legal Services Commissioner v Cooper [2016] QCAT 122 at [53].

2. As was recorded in the reasons of the Tribunal:[2]

   a)    The Commissioner sought an order for costs to be assessed;

   b)    The respondent accepted it was appropriate that there be an order that he pay the Commissioner’s costs;

   c)    As to the quantum of costs, the respondent submitted that, as the applicant employs salaried lawyers, it is inappropriate to order costs by reference to any court scale in those circumstances when a member of the independent bar was not retained;

   d)    The respondent submitted that the costs must…