Lukic v de Luca-Leonard (No 2) - [2017] NSWSC 841

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lukic v de Luca-Leonard (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 841
Hearing dates: 20 & 22 June 2017
Date of orders: 23 June 2017
Decision date: 23 June 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
(1) 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.
(2) Reserve costs of the plaintiff’s application pending final submissions.

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – request for an itemised bill of costs and client file – where plaintiff is not required to provide a reason for the request – whether any discretionary considerations apply – whether the application is an abuse of process
Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Act 2004
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW)
Cases Cited: Lukic v de Luca-Leonard [2017] NSWSC 814
Yang v Stephen Paul Firth trading as Firths The Compensation Lawyers [2013] NSWSC 676
Category: Principal judgment
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: I published some reasons for judgment in this matter yesterday: see Lukic v de Luca-Leonard [2017] NSWSC 814. That judgment is required reading for present purposes. In it I invited the parties to make further submissions upon the question of whether or not the provisions of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) or the Legal Profession Act 2004 applied in this case. Although the answer to that question was probably evident and uncontroversial, and possibly for that reason, neither of the parties made any submissions about it. However, having regard to the substantial and potentially significant difference between s 332A of the Legal Profession Act and s 187(2) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law I thought it best to invite specific attention to the question. Having done so, the parties agree, in my view correctly, that the 2004 Act applies to these proceedings.
Mr O’Sullivan of counsel also made some further submissions in elaboration of his earlier contentions on behalf of Ms de Luca-Leonard in opposition to Ms Lukic’s application. I have had regard to those further submissions as well.
In my opinion, Ms Lukic is entitled to the order that she seeks for the provision of an itemised bill of costs. I am not prepared to order that Ms de Luca-Leonard produce her file. This is for the following reasons.
First, s 728 of the 2004 Act confers a wide discretion upon the Supreme Court to order a law practice to give a client a bill of costs in respect of any legal services provided by the law practice. That discretion is unqualified by the terms of the section itself. It is nevertheless a discretion…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Lukic v de Luca-Leonard (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 841
Case: [2017] NSWSC 841
Decision Date: 23 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lukic v de Luca-Leonard (No 2) involved the plaintiff, Lukic, seeking an itemised bill of costs and the client file from the defendant, de Luca-Leonard. The dispute arose from a previous litigation matter, and Lukic sought the documents to review the costs incurred and the handling of the case file. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff was required to provide a reason for the request for an itemised bill of costs and the client file, and whether any discretionary considerations applied to the decision of the court. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the application constituted an abuse of process.

The court held that the plaintiff was not required to provide a reason for the request for an itemised bill of costs and the client file. The court emphasised the importance of transparency in legal costs and the client's right to access their own file. The court found that the application was not an abuse of process, as it was a legitimate request for information. However, the court did consider discretionary factors, such as the timing of the request and the potential impact on the defendant's ability to conduct their affairs. Ultimately, the court found that the request was reasonable and ordered the defendant to provide the requested documents.

The court's decision reinforced the importance of transparency and access to legal costs and files, while also recognising the need for balance in the application process. The court's order ensured that the plaintiff could review the costs incurred and the handling of their case file, while also considering the potential impact on the defendant.

Orders