MCC Pty Ltd v TCS Solicitors Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 18 min read

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

MCC Pty Ltd v TCS Solicitors Pty Ltd [2019] QDC 71

PARTIES:

MCC PTY LTD

(Applicant)

v

TCS Solicitors Pty Ltd

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

839/19

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 May 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Mackay

HEARING DATE:

24 April 2019

JUDGE:

Smith DCJA

ORDER:

THE ORDER OF THE COURT IS THAT:

1.          Mr Adam Bloom is appointed as the costs assessor to assess the costs described in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Application for Costs Assessment filed 11 March 2019.

THE COURT ALSO DIRECTS THAT:

2.          In conducting the assessment, Mr Bloom is to consider any submissions in writing by the Applicant and the Respondent:

(a) as to the Respondent’s compliance with sections 308(1) and 315 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld);

(b) if there has been any non-compliance with sections 308(1) or 315 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld):

(i)         the amount submitted to be proportionate to the seriousness of that non-compliance; and

(ii) whether Mr Bloom should exercise his discretion under section 316(4) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) to reduce the costs by that, or any other, amount.

3.          Any submissions by the Applicant and the Respondent as provided for in paragraph 2 above are to be delivered to Mr Bloom and each other party:

(a)        By the Applicant: within 14 days after the date of these directions;

(b)        By the Respondent: within 14 days after receiving the Applicant’s submissions;

(c)        By the Applicant: any submissions in response, within 14 days after receiving the Respondent’s submissions.

4.          I will hear the parties on the question of costs.  

CATCHWORDS:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – whether order for appointment of costs assessment should be made – whether directions should be given for trial.

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Q) ss 308, 315, 322, 323, 324, 325, 327, 328, 341

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Q) rr 26, 720, 721, 739G

HWL Ebsworth Lawyers v Pickering Auto Group Limited & Anor [2018] QDC 222

Paroz v Clifford Gouldsen Lawyers [2012] QDC 151

Radich v Kenway & Anor [2014] QCA 301

COUNSEL:

Solicitors for the applicant

Mr C.K. George counsel for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Taylor David solicitors for the applicant

TCS Solicitors for the respondent

Introduction

  1. This is an application by MCC Pty Ltd (“MCC”) for an order for the assessment of legal costs.

  1. As the argument developed the applicant sought directions so that the validity of the relevant costs agreements should be determined by the court before the assessment and directions in this regard were proposed.

  1. The respondent TCS Solicitors Pty Ltd (“TCS”) on the other hand agrees with the appointment of the costs assessor but opposes the directions submitting that there are no triable issues which need to be determined prior to the assessment of costs.

Applicant’s material

  1. Chad Gear has sworn an affidavit which was filed in this court on 11 March 2019.[1]

    [1]Document 2- Affidavit of Chad Gear filed 11…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read MCC Pty Ltd v TCS Solicitors Pty Ltd 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
[2019] QDC 71
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

MCC Pty Ltd initiated proceedings against TCS Solicitors Pty Ltd seeking the appointment of a costs assessor to evaluate the costs incurred during the litigation process. The case was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The primary legal issues before the court were whether an order should be made for the appointment of a costs assessor and if directions should be provided for the trial. The applicant argued that the costs incurred were excessive and sought an assessment to determine if they were proportionate to the services provided.

The court considered the arguments put forward by both parties. It noted that the applicant had filed an application for costs assessment, requesting that the costs be evaluated by a designated assessor. The respondent, TCS Solicitors Pty Ltd, had opposed the application on the grounds that the costs were reasonable and proportionate to the services rendered. The court examined the submissions and relevant legislation, including sections 308(1) and 315 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), which pertain to the regulation of legal practitioners and their conduct. Additionally, the court considered whether there had been any non-compliance with these sections and if the costs should be reduced accordingly.

In its decision, the court determined that Mr Adam Bloom should be appointed as the costs assessor to evaluate the costs described in the application. The court provided specific directions for the assessment process, including the consideration of submissions regarding the respondent's compliance with relevant legal provisions. The court also outlined a timeline for the submission of written arguments by both parties. Finally, the court noted that it would hear the parties on the question of costs.

The court's final orders appointed Mr Adam Bloom as the costs assessor and detailed the process for the assessment, including the consideration of submissions on compliance and potential reductions in costs. The court also set deadlines for the submission of written arguments by the applicant and the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE ORDER OF THE COURT IS THAT:

1. Mr Adam Bloom is appointed as the costs assessor to assess the costs described in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Application for Costs Assessment filed 11 March 2019.

THE COURT ALSO DIRECTS THAT:

2. In conducting the assessment, Mr Bloom is to consider any submissions in writing by the Applicant and the Respondent:

(a) as to the Respondent’s compliance with sections 308(1) and 315 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld);

(b) if there has been any non-compliance with sections 308(1) or 315 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld):

(i) the amount submitted to be proportionate to the seriousness of that non-compliance; and

(ii) whether Mr Bloom should exercise his discretion under section 316(4) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) to reduce the costs by that, or any other, amount.

3. Any submissions by the Applicant and the Respondent as provided for in paragraph 2 above are to be delivered to Mr Bloom and each other party:

(a) By the Applicant: within 14 days after the date of these directions;

(b) By the Respondent: within 14 days after receiving the Applicant’s submissions;

(c) By the Applicant: any submissions in response, within 14 days after receiving the Respondent’s submissions.

4. I will hear the parties on the question of costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.