Piper Alderman v Smoel - [2017] VSCA 42

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2016 0076

PIPER ALDERMAN	Applicant
v
KERRYN LINDA SMOEL AND SUSAN CAROLYN WOOSTER (IN THEIR CAPACITY AS THE TRUSTEES OF THE MORRIS FAMILY SUPERANNUATION FUND)	Respondents

---

JUDGES:	BEACH and FERGUSON JJA and CAMERON AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	28 February 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 March 2017
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSCA 42
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2016] VSC 237 (McMillan J)

---

LEGAL PROFESSION – Costs – Tax invoices – Whether invoices itemised bills – Invoices included attendance schedules with varying descriptions of work performed – Focus of legislative definition of ‘itemised bill’ under Legal Profession Act 2004 was on amenability to review by Costs Court - To be capable of review by Costs Court bill must specify in sufficient detail work done and amounts charged – Whether bill has sufficient detail to be assessed on case by case basis and in context – Invoices and attachments included sufficient information to satisfy requirements for itemised bills – Legal Profession Act 2004 Div 7 Pt 3.4.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the applicant	Mr P Collinson QC with Mr M Bearman	Piper Alderman
For the respondents	Mr P Lovell	Castra Legal Costing Pty Ltd

BEACH JA

FERGUSON JA
CAMERON AJA:

Introduction

The applicant, Piper Alderman, delivered 23 tax invoices to its clients (the trustees from time to time of the Morris Family Superannuation Fund). The invoices were delivered before the appointment of the current trustees, Kerryn Linda Smoel and Susan Carolyn Wooster. Ms Smoel and Ms Wooster (in their capacity as the Trustees of the Superannuation Fund) (‘the New Trustees’) are the respondents to the present application for leave to appeal. The New Trustees filed a summons for taxation seeking review of the costs claimed by Piper Alderman. As almost all of the invoices have been paid, if any amount is taxed off the bills, Piper Alderman will be required to repay that amount to the New Trustees. Consequently, as a defensive measure, Piper Alderman would like to be in a position to revise the invoices it delivered so that they would include amounts that had not previously been charged for work done by it. It should be stressed that Piper Alderman does not seek payment of any additional amount. It simply wants to ensure that it has a buffer so that if an amount is taxed off, it will be counterbalanced by one of the additional charges it might have made but did not.

So it is that Piper Alderman claims that the bills were ‘lump sum bills’ under the Legal Profession Act 2004 (‘the LPA’).[1] If they are, Piper Alderman would not be bound by the amount that it charged in the tax invoices. On the other hand, if they were ‘itemised bills’ under the LPA, Piper Alderman would be bound by the amount and matters stated in the invoices. It would not be able to create any buffer. Consequently, the current issue before this Court…

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 Piper Alderman v Smoel

Details

AGLC: Piper Alderman v Kerryn Linda Smoel and Susan Carolyn Wooster [2017] VSCA 42
Case: [2017] VSCA 42
Decision Date: 9 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Piper Alderman versus Smoel involves a dispute regarding the sufficiency of tax invoices provided by Piper Alderman, an Australian legal firm, to a client named Smoel. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether the invoices met the legislative definition of an 'itemised bill' as outlined in the Legal Profession Act 2004. The crux of the legal issue centred on whether the invoices, which included attendance schedules detailing the work performed, provided sufficient detail to satisfy the statutory requirements. The court was tasked with interpreting the legislative intent behind the definition of 'itemised bill', particularly focusing on the necessity for bills to be amenable to review by the Costs Court.

The court delved into the legislative text and purpose behind the requirement for itemised bills. It was established that the primary focus of the definition was to ensure that the bills contained sufficient detail to allow for effective review by the Costs Court. This meant that the bills needed to specify the work done and the amounts charged in a manner that was clear and detailed enough for assessment. The court considered the invoices provided in this case, which included attendance schedules with varying descriptions of the work performed, and concluded that these documents, along with their attachments, provided the necessary information to meet the statutory requirements. The court determined that the invoices were detailed enough to be capable of review and thus satisfied the definition of an itemised bill under the Legal Profession Act 2004.

The court ruled in favour of Piper Alderman, finding that the invoices met the requirements of an itemised bill as defined in the Legal Profession Act 2004. The detailed attendance schedules and descriptions of work performed, along with the accompanying invoices, provided sufficient information to allow for review by the Costs Court. Consequently, the court dismissed Smoel's claim that the invoices were insufficient. As a result of this ruling, Piper Alderman's invoices were deemed to comply with the legislative requirements.

Orders