Mackowiak v Hagipantelis; Bickhoff v Hagipantelis

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the plaintiffs, Mackowiak and Bickhoff, sought an itemised bill of costs from their former solicitors, Hagipantelis, and also applied for a costs assessment under section 350 of the Legal Profession Act 2004. The defendants, Hagipantelis, opposed the application on the grounds that the plaintiffs' application for an itemised bill of costs was made more than 12 months after the issue of the invoice, and therefore beyond the statutory time limit. The plaintiffs argued that they were not aware of their right to challenge the costs earlier and provided an adequate explanation for the delay.

The court considered the statutory provisions and the relevant case law in determining whether the plaintiffs' application was made within the appropriate timeframe. It noted that section 350 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 provides that a person aggrieved by an order made under the Act may apply to the court for a review of the order. The court held that the plaintiffs' application for an itemised bill of costs was an application for a review of the order, and therefore, the statutory time limit of 12 months applied. However, the court also considered the plaintiffs' explanation for the delay and found that they had provided an adequate explanation for the lapse in time. The court held that the defendants were not prejudiced by the delay and therefore, the application for an itemised bill of costs was not time-barred.

The court also considered the application for a costs assessment under section 350 of the Legal Profession Act 2004. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to an assessment of costs and ordered the defendants to provide an itemised bill of costs within 28 days. The court noted that the defendants had not raised any objection to the plaintiffs' application for costs assessment and therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief sought. The court also noted that the defendants had not provided any evidence of prejudice to them if the orders were made. Therefore, the court made the orders sought by the plaintiffs.

In conclusion, the court held that the plaintiffs' application for an itemised bill of costs was not time-barred and the application for a costs assessment under section 350 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 was successful. The court ordered the defendants to provide an itemised bill of costs within 28 days and to pay the costs of the application.