Patrick Smith Lawyers v Green - [2024] VSC 446

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
PRACTICE COURT

S ECI 2024 01258

PATRICK SMITH LAWYERS	Applicant
v
JANE GREEN (a pseudonym)	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Gorton J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16, 23 July 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 July 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Patrick Smith Lawyers v Green
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 446

---

COSTS – Unpaid legal costs – Application for costs assessment – Where applicant is the law practice – Whether having regard to the delay and reasons for the delay it is just and fair for application for assessment to be dealt with outside of 12-month period – Where dispute as to when respondent was sent invoices – Where applicant acted reasonably in sending invoices and seeking recovery – Where respondent unlikely to suffer specific prejudice – Where respondents’ health condition would have been present if applicant had brought application within time – Extension of time granted – Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541 – Legal Profession Uniform Law (Schedule 1 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application 2014 (Vic)) s 198.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr A Richardson	Patrick Smith Lawyers
For the Respondent	Self-represented

HIS HONOUR:

A. Introduction

On 19 March 2024, the applicant, Patrick Smith Lawyers, a law firm in Ascot Vale, applied by summons for a taxation (or ‘assessment’ – I will use the words interchangeably) of costs for work performed for its former client, Jane Green (a pseudonym). The relevant invoices are for work performed in the period prior to the end of June 2020. Section 198 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law[1] (‘the Uniform Law’) entitle a law firm to apply for an assessment of legal costs payable to it, but requires that the application be made within 12 months after the bill was given to, or the request for payment was made, to its client. Section 198(4) allows an application that is made out of time to be dealt with by the costs assessor if the ‘designated tribunal’ (here, a judge of this Court[2]) determines, after having regard to the delay and the reasons for the delay, that it is just and fair for the application for assessment to be dealt with after the 12-month period. On 3 April 2024, Judicial Registrar Conidi referred that question to a judge of this Court (the ‘designated tribunal’).[3] The application has been argued on the assumption that, if the costs are not able to be assessed, the applicant will not be able to recover them.[4]
[1]Being Schedule 1 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application 2014 (Vic).
[2]A ‘designated tribunal’ is defined in s 6(1) of the Uniform Law to be a court or tribunal specified or described in a law of this jurisdiction for the purpose of a provision, or part of a provision, of the Uniform Law in which the term is used.
[3]See, eg, Marshalls & Dent & Wilmoth v…

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 Patrick Smith Lawyers v Green 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: [2024] VSC 446
Decision Date: 30 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Patrick Smith Lawyers v Green was heard by the court, involving a dispute over unpaid legal costs. The law practice, Patrick Smith Lawyers, sought an assessment of costs against the respondent, Green, who had failed to pay the costs incurred. The primary legal issue before the court was whether it was just and fair to extend the time period for the application for costs assessment, given the delay and the reasons for that delay. The court was required to consider whether the law practice acted reasonably in sending the invoices and seeking recovery, and whether the respondent would suffer specific prejudice if the application was heard outside the usual 12-month period.

The court examined the facts surrounding the delay and the reasons for it, noting the dispute over when the respondent was actually sent the invoices. It was found that the law practice had acted reasonably in sending the invoices and pursuing recovery. The court also considered the respondent's health condition, which would have been present regardless of when the application was brought, and determined that the respondent was unlikely to suffer specific prejudice as a result of the delay. In light of these considerations, the court found it was just and fair to extend the time period for the costs assessment application.

The court referred to the case of Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541 and the relevant provisions of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (Schedule 1 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application 2014 (Vic)) s 198. Based on these authorities and the specific circumstances of the case, the court granted the extension of time for the application for costs assessment. The court determined that it was appropriate to deal with the application outside of the usual 12-month period, considering the factors outlined above.

The final orders of the court included an extension of time for the applicant to pursue the assessment of costs against the respondent, and a direction for the respondent to pay the costs within a specified period. The court's decision balanced the need for timely resolution of disputes with the need to consider the specific circumstances of each case, ensuring that justice is served in a fair and reasonable manner.

Orders