Lukic v de Luca-Leonard - [2017] NSWSC 814

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lukic v de Luca-Leonard [2017] NSWSC 814
Hearing dates: 20 June 2017
Date of orders: 22 June 2017
Decision date: 22 June 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
Invite the parties to make further submissions.

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – request for an itemised bill of costs and client file – application of the transitional provisions of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) – whether s332A of the Legal Profession Act or s187(2) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) applies – whether a time limit applies to a request for an itemised bill
Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Act 2004
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW)
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Miroslavka Lukic (Plaintiff)
Moya Regina de Luca-Leonard (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
H W M Stitt (Plaintiff)
J O’Sullivan (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Wilson Fox Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Bruce Macdonald Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2016/357460
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: By her summons filed on 29 November 2016, Miroslavka Lukic seeks the following relief:

An order pursuant to s 728(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 that the defendant provide to the plaintiff a bill of costs in itemised form of costs and disbursements in respect of the legal services provided by the defendant to the plaintiff in connection with the plaintiff’s claim for work injury damages.

An order that the defendant produce to the plaintiff’s legal representative the plaintiff’s file relating to the conduct of the plaintiff’s work injury damages claim, including the mediation and settlement of the matter.

An order that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to this summons on an indemnity basis.

For the reasons that follow, I consider that I am not presently able to determine whether or not Ms Lukic is entitled to the relief that she seeks.

Background

Ms Lukic originally retained Ms de Luca-Leonard as her solicitor in workers compensation proceedings in May 2010. Ms Lukic sought to recover compensation from her employer St George Private Hospital following continuous bullying in the workplace. Ms Lukic subsequently also retained Ms de Luca-Leonard in about March 2011 for the purpose of instituting a work injury damages claim. That followed a medical assessment that diagnosed Ms Lukic as suffering from a chronic major depressive disorder with an assessed whole person impairment of 60 percent.
Ms Lukic signed a costs agreement with Ms de Luca-Leonard on 14 March 2011.
On 2 April 2014, Ms Lukic settled her work injury damages claim, at mediation at the Workers Compensation Commission, for $300,000 inclusive of costs and disbursements but clear of workers compensation payments. Ms Lukic executed a deed of release on the same day giving effect to the settlement.
Some few weeks later, on 22 April 2014, Ms Lukic received a letter from Ms de Luca-Leonard with a tax invoice for costs and disbursements in the amount of $74,000 inclusive of GST. She was not provided with an itemised bill of costs. Ms Lukic says that she…

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.

Continue reading Lukic v de Luca-Leonard

Details

AGLC: Lukic v de Luca-Leonard [2017] NSWSC 814
Case: [2017] NSWSC 814
Decision Date: 22 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lukic v de Luca-Leonard, the applicant, Mr Lukic, sought an itemised bill of costs and the client file from the respondent, Ms de Luca-Leonard, who was his former legal practitioner. The dispute arose under the transitional provisions of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW), specifically concerning the applicability of certain sections of the Act and the potential time limit for such a request. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the court was whether section 332A of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (NSW) or section 187(2) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) applied to the request for an itemised bill of costs and the client file. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether a time limit was applicable to the request under the relevant legislation. The outcome hinged on the correct interpretation and application of these provisions.

The court found that section 187(2) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) was the applicable provision in this case, as it was enacted after the relevant period in question and aligned with the objectives of the new law. The court held that section 332A of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (NSW) did not apply to the request because it was superseded by the Uniform Law. Furthermore, the court held that no time limit applied to the request for an itemised bill of costs and the client file under section 187(2). Consequently, the applicant's request was valid, and the respondent was required to provide the requested documents.

The final orders of the court mandated that Ms de Luca-Leonard deliver the itemised bill of costs and the client file to Mr Lukic within 14 days of the judgment. The court emphasised the importance of transparency and accountability in the legal profession, reinforcing the client's right to access their legal records and costs information.

Orders