Pott v Clayton Utz - [2012] QSC 167

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Pott v Clayton Utz [2012] QSC 167

PARTIES:

CECILIA KIT-YING POTT (as Executor of the Estate of BRYAN FREDERICK NIEBOUR POTT, Deceased)

(Applicant)

v

CLAYTON UTZ (a registered business name)

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 2982 of 2012

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court

DELIVERED ON:

19 June 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 June 2012

JUDGE:

Boddice J

ORDER:

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS – Itemised bills – where the applicant seeks a direction pursuant to r 743C Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) that the respondent deliver itemised bills – whether the information provided by the respondent to the applicant is inadequate – whether the applicant has satisfied the onus to demonstrate that the respondent has not provided an itemised bill in accordance with the statutory entitlement – whether the respondent should be directed to deliver itemised bills

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld)

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

Malleson Stewart Stawell and Nankivell v Williams [1930] VLR 410

Ralph Hume Garry (a firm) v Gwillim [2003] 1 WLR 510

Tabtill No 2 Pty Ltd and Ors v DLA Phillips Fox (a firm) and Anor [2012] QSC 115

COUNSEL:

G Robinson for the applicant

K Downes SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Gall Standfield & Smith for the applicant

Clayton Utz for the respondent

By Originating Application filed 30 March 2012, the applicant seeks orders in relation to legal costs charged by the respondent in acting for the applicant’s late husband and the applicant, as executor of his estate, in legal proceedings.

At the hearing of the application, the applicant’s claim for a declaration in accordance with paragraph 1 of the Originating Application was dismissed. The respondent also conceded that, except in relation to eight identified invoices, the applicant is entitled to further relief in relation to fees issued to her by the respondent. The respondent proposed a series of Orders by which that process could effectively progress. The applicant accepted those proposed orders provided a practical progression of that aspect of the applicant’s application.

The remaining issue for determination relates to the eight identified invoices. The applicant seeks similar further relief in respect of these invoices. The respondent contends the applicant is not entitled to any further relief in relation to these invoices. Each of these invoices was the subject of earlier challenges by the applicant, and subsequent agreements between the applicant and the respondent for a reduction in the amount to be paid in relation to those invoices. The respondent submits that in those circumstances the applicant has not discharged her onus to establish a basis to challenge the invoices in question.

The background to the application may be summarised briefly. The applicant’s late husband, Mr Pott, was a defendant in Supreme Court proceedings commenced in 1998. In 2004, he retained the respondent to act on his behalf in that litigation. A costs agreement was entered into in 2004. Thereafter, invoices were sent…

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 Pott v Clayton Utz

Details

AGLC: Pott v Clayton Utz [2012] QSC 167
Case: [2012] QSC 167
Decision Date: 19 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pott v Clayton Utz involved a dispute over costs, specifically the adequacy of itemised bills provided by the respondent to the applicant. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant, Pott, sought a direction under Rule 743C of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) that the respondent, Clayton Utz, deliver itemised bills. The core issue was whether the information provided by Clayton Utz to Pott was adequate under the statutory entitlement and whether Pott had discharged the onus of proving that the respondent had not provided an itemised bill as required.

The court considered the statutory framework and the obligations of parties under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. It examined the specific details of the information provided by Clayton Utz and whether it met the necessary standards for itemised billing. The court assessed whether Pott had sufficiently demonstrated that the provided information did not constitute a proper itemised bill. The analysis involved a detailed review of the contents of the bill and whether it aligned with the requirements set out in the legislation. Ultimately, the court found that Pott had not discharged the onus of proving that Clayton Utz's bill was inadequate. Consequently, the court ruled that no direction should be given to Clayton Utz to deliver further itemised bills.

The court's decision was based on a thorough examination of the statutory provisions and the evidence presented. The court concluded that the information provided by Clayton Utz was adequate and that Pott had not met the required threshold to establish inadequacy. As a result, the application for a direction under Rule 743C was dismissed. The court's ruling effectively upheld the adequacy of the respondent's billing practices in this instance.

Orders