Murdock v Sterling Law (Qld) Pty Ltd - [2019] QDC 226

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Murdock v Sterling Law (Qld) Pty Ltd [2019] QDC 226

PARTIES:

JOANNE MURDOCK
(appellant)

v

STERLING LAW (QLD) PTY LTD trading as STERLING LAW (QLD) PTY LTD
ABN 64 165 643 881
(respondent)

FILE NO:

1636 of 2019

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

11 November 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 October 2019

JUDGE:

Porter QC DCJ

ORDER:

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal fixed at $11,000 inclusive of GST.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – REMUNERATION – COSTS AGREEMENTS – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant is a former client of the respondent – where the respondent provided a bill to the appellant – where the appellant requested an itemised bill pursuant to s. 332 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) – whether the bill provided by the respondent to the appellant was an itemised bill pursuant to s. 300 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld)

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – SUMMARY DISPOSAL – SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF OR APPLICANT – GENERALLY – where the appellant is a former client of the respondent – where the respondent brought a claim against the appellant to recover monies said to be owing – where the respondent applied for and obtained summary judgment in the Magistrates Court – where the appellant contends that the respondent had not provided an itemised bill of costs as requested – where the appellant made deemed admissions regarding the substance of the respondent’s claim – where no application was made to withdraw the deemed admissions – whether the learned Magistrate erred in granting summary judgment to the respondent

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 300, s 329, s 330, s 332, s 335, s 338, s 340, s 341

Magistrates Court Act 1921 (Qld), s 45

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 720, r 743, r 743A, r 743B, r 743C

28 Careel Development Pty Ltd v S.O.S. Plumbing Services (Qld) Pty Ltd [2016] QDC 223

Clayton Utz Lawyers v P&W Enterprises Pty Ltd [2011] QDC 5

Piper Alderman v Smoel [2017] VSCA 42

Pott v Clayton Utz [2012] QSC 167

Robertson v Boe Williams Lawyers [2013] QCA 252

Tabtill No. 2 Pty Ltd v DLA Phillips Fox [2012] QSC 115

COUNSEL:

WT Fitzgerald (solicitor) for the appellant
PG Jeffery for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Rose Litigation Lawyers for the appellant
Sterling Law for the respondent

Summary

The appellant (Ms Murdock) retained the respondent incorporated law legal practice (Sterling) to act for her in a de facto property settlement on 20 March 2017. On the same day she entered into a written costs agreement (the Costs Agreement) and received a Disclosure Notice under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) (LPA). Sterling acted in the matter until 12 December 2018 when they terminated the Costs Agreement and provided a…

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 Murdock v Sterling Law (Qld) 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 226
Decision Date: 11 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Murdock v Sterling Law (Qld) Pty Ltd, the appellant, a former client of the respondent, challenged the respondent's summary judgment obtained in the Magistrates Court of Queensland. The respondent, Sterling Law (Qld) Pty Ltd, sought to recover monies it claimed were owed by the appellant. The appellant argued that the respondent had not provided an itemised bill of costs as required by s. 332 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). The appellant also contended that the Magistrate erred in granting summary judgment due to the absence of an itemised bill and the appellant's deemed admissions regarding the respondent's claim.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court involved the interpretation of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) and the procedural implications of deemed admissions in the context of summary judgment applications. The court had to determine whether the bill provided by the respondent constituted an itemised bill as required by s. 300 of the Act and whether the Magistrate erred in granting summary judgment in light of the appellant's argument about the absence of an itemised bill. The court's analysis also included consideration of the appellant's failure to make an application to withdraw the deemed admissions.

The court found that the bill provided by the respondent was indeed an itemised bill as required by the Act. The court reasoned that the bill contained sufficient detail to meet the statutory requirements. Consequently, the court held that the Magistrate did not err in granting summary judgment. Furthermore, the court observed that the appellant had not sought to withdraw the deemed admissions, which the appellant had made regarding the substance of the respondent's claim. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, fixed at $11,000 inclusive of GST.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal fixed at $11,000 inclusive of GST.

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.

CITATION:	Murdock v Sterling Law (Qld) Pty Ltd [2019] QDC 226
PARTIES:	JOANNE MURDOCK (appellant) v STERLING LAW (QLD) PTY LTD trading as STERLING LAW (QLD) PTY LTD ABN 64 165 643 881 (respondent)
FILE NO:	1636 of 2019
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	11 November 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 October 2019
JUDGE:	Porter QC DCJ
ORDER:	1. Appeal dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal fixed at $11,000 inclusive of GST.
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – REMUNERATION – COSTS AGREEMENTS – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant is a former client of the respondent – where the respondent provided a bill to the appellant – where the appellant requested an itemised bill pursuant to s. 332 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) – whether the bill provided by the respondent to the appellant was an itemised bill pursuant to s. 300 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – SUMMARY DISPOSAL – SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF OR APPLICANT – GENERALLY – where the appellant is a former client of the respondent – where the respondent brought a claim against the appellant to recover monies said to be owing – where the respondent applied for and obtained summary judgment in the Magistrates Court – where the appellant contends that the respondent had not provided an itemised bill of costs as requested – where the appellant made deemed admissions regarding the substance of the respondent’s claim – where no application was made to withdraw the deemed admissions – whether the learned Magistrate erred in granting summary judgment to the respondent Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 300, s 329, s 330, s 332, s 335, s 338, s 340, s 341 Magistrates Court Act 1921 (Qld), s 45 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 720, r 743, r 743A, r 743B, r 743C 28 Careel Development Pty Ltd v S.O.S. Plumbing Services (Qld) Pty Ltd [2016] QDC 223 Clayton Utz Lawyers v P&W Enterprises Pty Ltd [2011] QDC 5 Piper Alderman v Smoel [2017] VSCA 42 Pott v Clayton Utz [2012] QSC 167 Robertson v Boe Williams Lawyers [2013] QCA 252 Tabtill No. 2 Pty Ltd v DLA Phillips Fox [2012] QSC 115
COUNSEL:	WT Fitzgerald (solicitor) for the appellant PG Jeffery for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Rose Litigation Lawyers for the appellant Sterling Law for the respondent