Pay v Williamson

[2021] QCA 32

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Pay & Ors v Williamson & Ors [2021] QCA 32

PARTIES:

RONALD RAYMOND PAY
(first respondent/not a party to the application)
AUSTRALIAN UNITY TRUSTEES LIMITED AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MERYL NOLA WILLIAMSON, DECEASED
(second respondent/applicant)
IAN PETER THOMPSON TRADING AS IBT LAW
(third respondent/applicant)
v
KARA WILLIAMSON
(first appellant/not a party to the application)
LEAH WILLIAMSON
(second appellant/not a party to the application)
DAVID LAWS
(third appellant/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 12676 of 2020
SC No 14093 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2020] QSC 324 (Williams J)

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

4 March 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 March 2021

JUDGES:

Morrison JA

ORDERS:

By consent it is ordered:

1.   The appeal, as it relates to the second respondent, is dismissed.

2.   The third appellant pay the costs (including reserved costs) of the second respondent of the appeal, fixed in the sum of $23,000.

Order:

3.   The third appellant pay the third respondent’s costs of the adjournment on 1 March 2021, and of the hearing on 4 March 2021, fixed in the sum of $12,000.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COURT SUPERVISION – WANT OF PROSECUTION OR LACK OF PROGRESS – where the respondent of the application is a barrister – where there has been repeated disobedience of the Court’s directions – where the appeal has been settled

Mathiesen v Lawson & Ors[2019] QCA 35, cited
Tyler v Custom Credit Corporation Ltd[2000] QCA 178, cited

COUNSEL:

C Brewer for the second respondent/applicant
M Williams for the third respondent/applicant
D Laws for the third appellant/respondent

SOLICITORS:

McInnes Wilson for the second respondent/applicant
IBT Law for the third respondent/applicant

1. MORRISON JA:  The appellant, Mr Laws, is a barrister admitted to practice in the Supreme Court of Queensland.  Australian Unity Trustees Ltd, the principal respondent in the appeal and applicant on the present application, is the administrator of a deceased estate in respect of which Mr Laws was involved in a professional capacity, instructed by the second respondent, Mr Thompson (a solicitor).

2. On 27 October 2020 Williams J delivered reasons dismissing an application by Mr Laws for an order that his professional costs be declared the subject of a lien, and that the estate bear the substantial burden of those costs.[1]  The essence of the dispute in the primary proceedings can be gleaned from the following drawn from the learned primary judge’s reasons:

   (a)an order was made on 26 September 2020, that the costs of those who sought probate for the estate be paid from the estate, on the indemnity basis;

   (b)those costs had been assessed (pursuant to a court order sought by the administrator of the estate) at $230,787.74;

   (c)Mr Laws had acted in a professional capacity for the applicants for probate, instructed by Mr Thompson;

   (d)Mr Laws had not been paid his fees for that…