Progressive Projects Pty Ltd v McCullough Robertson Lawyers

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Progressive Projects Pty Ltd v McCullough Robertson Lawyers [2024] QSC 39

PARTIES:

PROGRESSIVE PROJECTS PTY LTD ACN 010 636 316

AS TRUSTEE FOR THE JOHN FACER SUPERANNUATION FUND

(Applicant)
v

MCCULLOUGH ROBERTSON LAWYERS ABN 42 721 345 951

(Respondent)

FILENO/S:

BS 16265 of 2023

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATINGCOURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVEREDON:

18 March 2024

DELIVEREDAT:

Brisbane

HEARINGDATE:

5 February 2024

JUDGE:

Martin SJA

ORDER:

The respondent pay the applicant’s costs on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT – WHERE ACTION SETTLED OR OTHERWISE DETERMINED WITHOUT HEARING –

where the applicant engaged the respondent to act on its behalf in a proceeding – where the respondent sent invoices to the applicant for work performed – where the applicant expressed concern as to the level of fees – where the respondent issued a statutory demand – where the applicant filed applications seeking an assessment of costs and that the statutory demand be set aside – where the respondent withdrew the statutory demand – whether order should be made as to costs

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 459E, s 459H, s 459J

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) s 335, s 338

Ayrtown Investments Pty Ltd v Andrlik (2000) 34 ACSR 643; [2000] ACTSC 55, considered

Rusca Bros Services Pty Ltd v Dlaw Pty Ltd (No 2) (2019)

140 ACSR 533; [2019] FCA 1865, applied

Chameleon Mining NL v Atanaskovic Hartnell [2009] NSWSC 602, considered

Re Southern Cross Exploration NL [2016] NSWSC 1003, considered

COUNSEL:

A Corbutt (Solicitor) for the applicant S-J Tan for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

K2 Law for the applicant

McCullough Robertson Lawyers for the respondent

1. In November 2019 and, again, in September 2021, the applicant engaged the respondent (MRL) to act on its behalf in matters concerning the Australian Taxation Office and an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. MRL sent invoices to the applicant for the work performed in the sum of $237,010.61. That sum was not paid and MRL issued a statutory demand (the Demand) under s 459E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

1. After the applicant became aware of the Demand, it sought itemised invoices and filed:

   (a)an application under s 335 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 seeking an assessment of the costs charged; and

   (b)an application under s459H or s 459J of the Corporations Act 2001 seeking an order setting the Demand aside.

1. On 1 February 2024 MRL withdrew the Demand. The parties have agreed to the appointment of a costs assessor.

1. The applicant now pursues an order that MRL pay its costs on the indemnity basis.

The events which led to the withdrawal of the Demand

1. In order to understand the arguments advanced by the parties it is necessary that the history of the matter be set out.

1. From July 2022 the applicant, among other things, expressed its concern at the level of fees being…