Paul v Birchgrove Legal Pty Ltd trading as Birchgrove Legal ABN 83161158532 - [2025] NSWDC 175

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Paul v Birchgrove Legal Pty Ltd trading as Birchgrove Legal ABN 83161158532 [2025] NSWDC 175
Hearing dates: 28-29 November 2024
Date of orders: 15 May 2025
Decision date: 15 May 2025
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Cole DCJ
Decision:
The Summons Commencing an Appeal filed on 5 February 2024 is dismissed.

Catchwords:
COSTS — Appeals — Appeal from a costs assessment – question of whether the defendant was entitled to legal fees – was the costs agreement an entire contract

Legislation Cited:
LegalProfession Uniform Law Application Act 2014
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW)
Succession Act 2006
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

Cases Cited:
Bingham v Bevan [2023] NSWCA 86
Gilmore Finance Pty Ltd v Aesthete No 3 Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 114
Kartal & Dutsanee [2016] FamCA 1158
Limberger v Limberger; Oakman v Limberger [2021] NSWSC 474
Paul v Satici [2022] NSWSC 922

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Esin Paul (Plaintiff)
Birchgrove Legal Pty Ltd trading as Birchgrove Legal (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Trebeck (Plaintiff)
D Birch (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Harris & Company (Plaintiff)
Birchgrove Legal (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2024/00044790
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Ms Esin Paul commenced this action by filing a Summons Commencing an Appeal on 5 February 2024. Ms Paul appeals pursuant to s 89 of the LegalProfession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 from the decision of a Costs Review Panel made on 9 January 2024 in relation to a bill of costs rendered to her by her former solicitors, Birchgrove Legal Pty Ltd, trading as Birchgrove Legal (‘Birchgrove Legal’) which is a legal firm practising in New South Wales.
Ms Paul does not appeal in relation to the decision as to the quantum of costs arrived at by the Costs Review Panel. Her appeal seeks a determination that Birchgrove Legal has no entitlement to claim costs from her at all.
An affidavit of Ms Paul dated 17 July 2024 and an affidavit of Mr Grant Hansen dated 25 July 2024 were provided in Ms Paul’s case. An affidavit of Mr Alameddine dated 27 September 2024 was provided in Birchgrove Legal’s case.

Facts

In about May 2020, Ms Paul engaged Birchgrove Legal to act for her in relation to her claim against the estate of her father, the late Yilmaz Satici (‘the estate’). Ms Paul’s brother, Erkan Satici, was the executor of the estate. Mr Alameddine was the solicitor from Birchgrove Legal with conduct of the matter.
On 29 May 2020, Birchgrove Legal provided Ms Paul with a letter setting out the terms of a costs agreement and disclosure (the costs agreement’) under Part 4.3 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) (‘the Uniform Law’). This letter has been referred to both as a costs agreement and as a retainer in this appeal.
On 19 November 2020, Ms Paul filed an application for a family provision order, under the Succession Act 2006, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Paul v Satici [2022] NSWSC 922 (‘the Supreme…

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.

Continue reading Paul v Birchgrove Legal Pty Ltd trading as Birchgrove Legal...

Details

AGLC: Paul v Birchgrove Legal Pty Ltd trading as Birchgrove Legal ABN 83161158532 [2025] NSWDC 175
Case: [2025] NSWDC 175
Decision Date: 15 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Paul initiated legal proceedings against Birchgrove Legal, contending that they were owed fees for legal work performed under a contract. The matter was heard and determined in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether Birchgrove Legal was entitled to recover its legal fees under the terms of a costs agreement and, if so, whether the agreement constituted an entire contract. The court was required to determine whether the defendant was entitled to the fees claimed and if the costs agreement was an entire contract, which would mean that if any part of the agreement was unenforceable, the entire agreement would be void.

The court examined the terms of the costs agreement and found that the agreement was indeed an entire contract. The court held that because the agreement was an entire contract, if any part of it was unenforceable, the entire agreement would be void. The court further determined that the particular provisions of the costs agreement that were being challenged by Paul were not unenforceable. Consequently, the court held that Birchgrove Legal was entitled to recover its legal fees under the terms of the agreement. The court dismissed Paul's appeal against the costs assessment, affirming that Birchgrove Legal was entitled to the fees claimed.

Given the dismissal of the appeal, the court did not need to make any further orders. The outcome of the case was that Birchgrove Legal was entitled to recover its legal fees under the terms of the costs agreement. The court's decision emphasised the importance of carefully considering the terms of a costs agreement, particularly in relation to the enforceability of the agreement as a whole.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Summons Commencing an Appeal filed on 5 February 2024 is dismissed.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Paul v Birchgrove Legal Pty Ltd trading as Birchgrove Legal ABN 83161158532 [2025] NSWDC 175
Hearing dates:	28-29 November 2024
Date of orders:	15 May 2025
Decision date:	15 May 2025
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Cole DCJ
Decision:	The Summons Commencing an Appeal filed on 5 February 2024 is dismissed.
Catchwords:	COSTS — Appeals — Appeal from a costs assessment – question of whether the defendant was entitled to legal fees – was the costs agreement an entire contract
Legislation Cited:	LegalProfession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) Succession Act 2006 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Cases Cited:	Bingham v Bevan [2023] NSWCA 86 Gilmore Finance Pty Ltd v Aesthete No 3 Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 114 Kartal & Dutsanee [2016] FamCA 1158 Limberger v Limberger; Oakman v Limberger [2021] NSWSC 474 Paul v Satici [2022] NSWSC 922
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Esin Paul (Plaintiff) Birchgrove Legal Pty Ltd trading as Birchgrove Legal (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: J Trebeck (Plaintiff) D Birch (Defendant) Solicitors: Harris & Company (Plaintiff) Birchgrove Legal (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2024/00044790
Publication restriction:	Nil