Re Rose and Jensen

The case of Re Rose and Jensen involves an application by John Joseph Richardson seeking orders for the respondents, Rose and Jensen, to deliver bills of cost in taxable form and for those bills to be taxed. The application was opposed by the respondents, although they did not challenge the applicant's right to seek the orders. The applicant had initially instructed the respondents concerning a dispute with the Australian Mutual Provident Society, and subsequent action was settled in August 1994. The respondents had sent a document referred to as a "memo of costs and estimated disbursements" on 27 September 1994, which did not specify charges for individual matters but listed a total fee of $43,000.

The legal issues before the court were whether the memo of costs was sufficient for the applicant to make an informed decision about the reasonableness of the charge, and if the court should exercise its discretion to grant the relief sought by the applicant despite potential prejudice to the respondents. The court noted that the memo of costs was not a bill of costs and was not detailed enough to allow the applicant to properly assess the reasonableness of the charges. Additionally, the disparity between the memo of costs and an independent assessment of the costs raised concerns about the fairness of the charges.

The court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant, considering the significant disparity between the memo of costs and the independent assessment, as well as the potential for the respondents to prepare a bill of costs despite the loss of some file materials. The court ordered that the respondents deliver bills of cost in taxable form and that those bills be taxed, with the costs of the application to be borne by each party.