LPD Holdings (Aust) Pty Ltd v Russells

LPD Holdings (Aust) Pty Ltd filed an application in the Supreme Court of Queensland, seeking an assessment of the legal costs it paid to Russells (A Firm) in relation to certain legal services provided. Russells opposed the application on the grounds that LPD had previously agreed to the amount of fees and costs payable and that the application was barred by the doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel. The primary issue for the Court was whether the previous proceedings in the District Court, which resulted in a default judgment for Russells, justified the dismissal of LPD's current application for an assessment of legal costs. The Court had to consider whether the previous proceedings and the current proceedings concerned the same cause of action and if a default judgment could found a successful plea of res judicata.

The Court held that LPD's rights to an assessment of legal costs were not compromised by the September 2013 Agreement. The agreement only addressed the payment of outstanding accounts and established a regime for payments for work done over the following six months. It did not contain any form of release from claims or preclude past and future costs from being assessed under the statutory regime governing legal costs. Additionally, if the agreement amounted to a compromise of LPD's rights, it would be void as against public policy as it would amount to an unlawful attempt to oust the jurisdiction of the court to order an assessment of legal costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed LPD's appeal against the decision of Botting DCJ, who refused to set aside the default judgment. The Court of Appeal held that LPD's contentions were not sufficient to warrant setting aside the default judgment. The Court concluded that there was no triable issue and that the order should be the dismissal of the application with costs to be assessed.