Maurice Blackburn v Burmingham - [2009] VSC 20

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No. 9783 of 2004

MAURICE BLACKBURN PTY LTD (ACN 105 657 949) and MAURICE BLACKBURN CASHMAN (a firm)	Plaintiffs
v
DAVID BURMINGHAM	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	BYRNE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	3, 4 March, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26 November, 15, 17, 19 December 2008; 2, 3, 4 February, 10 March 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 March 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Maurice Blackburn v Burmingham
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 20	Revised 6 April 2009

---

Legal Practitioners – retainer to act in litigious matter – conditional costs agreement – uplifted fee – fee payable upon successful outcome of the matter – retainer determined before completion of matter – client later settled matter – whether successful outcome –whether solicitors entitled to render account – whether client in breach of costs agreement – whether solicitors entitled to uplifted fee – whether costs agreement void for contravention of Legal Practice Act 1996 ss 96, 97 – whether solicitors entitled to fees pursuant to s 93(b).

Legal Practice Act 1996 ss 96, 97, 102

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr DA Klempfner	Maurice Blackburn Pty Ltd
The Defendant appeared in person

Table of Contents

The Trial

The Issues

The Facts

The Settlement of the AXA Litigation

The Assignment Point

The Burmingham Breaches

The Solicitors’ Claims

Claim under contract
Repudiation Claim

The Burmingham Allegations

General competence and the retainer of counsel
Preparation of the Case for trial
Payment of disbursements
The settlement negotiations
The conduct of MBC after June 2003
General

Conclusions

HIS HONOUR:

The defendant, David George Peter Burmingham, had practised as a chartered accountant for some 10 years prior to 1992. In March of that year he suffered a mental breakdown and he made a claim upon his income protection insurer, Australian Casualty and Life Ltd. The insurer subsequently went into liquidation and its responsibilities under the policy were accepted by AXA. I shall for convenience refer in this judgment to the insurer as AXA notwithstanding that it may not then have been the company responsible for the cover. AXA accepted the claim and made monthly payments under the policy until October 1994 when they ceased.

Mr Burmingham was aggrieved by this and in April 1997 he sought the assistance of the secondnamed plaintiff, a firm of solicitors carrying on practice in partnership under the registered business name, Maurice Blackburn Cashman (“MBC”), to press his entitlement to continuing payments. Its efforts were unsuccessful and he decided, in accordance with its advice, to sue AXA, which he did in proceeding No 7142 of 2000 in this Court on 11 October 2000.

Since Mr Burmingham lacked the resources to pursue the AXA claim, on 1 June 1997, he entered into a costs agreement with MBC for it to press and, if possible, negotiate a resolution of the claim. And later, in September 2000, when these negotiations came to nothing and he decided…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Maurice Blackburn v Burmingham and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] VSC 20
Decision Date: 20 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Maurice Blackburn Lawyers against Burmingham, the dispute revolved around a conditional costs agreement between the client and the law firm. The agreement stipulated that the client would pay the firm's fees only if they achieved a successful outcome in their litigation. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the solicitors were entitled to render an account for their services, whether the client breached the costs agreement, and if the solicitors were entitled to an uplifted fee. Furthermore, the court needed to consider whether the costs agreement was void due to potential contraventions of sections 96 and 97 of the Legal Practice Act 1996, and whether the solicitors could claim fees under section 93(b) of the Act.

The court examined the terms of the costs agreement and the events leading to its termination. It found that the client had terminated the retainer before the matter was concluded. Despite this, the client later settled the matter, raising questions about whether this constituted a successful outcome under the agreement. The court also considered the implications of the Legal Practice Act, particularly sections 96, 97, and 102, in determining the validity of the agreement and the entitlement of the solicitors to their fees. Ultimately, the court ruled that the solicitors were entitled to render an account for their services and that the client had not breached the costs agreement. The court also found that the uplifted fee was payable as per the agreement, and it did not contravene the Legal Practice Act.

The final orders of the court recognised the solicitors' entitlement to their fees, including the uplifted fee, and directed the client to pay the outstanding amount. The court held that the costs agreement was valid and enforceable, and that the solicitors' entitlement to fees did not contravene the Legal Practice Act. This decision reinforces the importance of clear and precise terms in conditional costs agreements and the obligations of both parties under such agreements.

Orders