Reid v Amaca Pty Ltd and Anor [No 2]

Case [2020] VSC 314


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DUSTS DISEASES LIST

S ECI  2019 01558

BRUCE REID Plaintiff
AMACA PTY LTD (UNDER NSW ADMINISTERED WINDING UP) (ACN 000 035 512) First Defendant
and
SELTSAM PTY LTD (ACN 000 003 734) Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:

Incerti J

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

On the papers

DATE OF RULING:

1 June 2020

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

Reid v Amaca Pty Ltd & Anor [No 2]

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2020] VSC 314

---

COSTS – Counsel’s fees – Certification – Amount of preparation for de bene esse – Amount of preparation for junior counsel.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel Solicitors
For the Plaintiff No appearance N/A
For the First Defendant Mr Matthew Hooper Mills Oakley
For the Second Defendant Ms Roisin Annesley QC with Ms Kim Bradey Colin Biggers & Paisley

HER HONOUR:

  1. I delivered my judgment in this proceeding on 19 May 2020. The only remaining issue is costs.  The parties filed written submissions.

  1. The issues in dispute are the:

(a)   certification of senior counsel’s fees;

(b)  amount of preparation claimed for the de bene esse examination for senior counsel; and

(c)   claim for two days of trial preparation for trial for junior counsel. 

Otherwise, the defendants agree that interest is payable from 16 December 2019 at the applicable rate.  Interest on $280,000 at 10% per annum equates to $76.5229 per day.  Interest until 1 June 2020 totals $12,932.32.[1] 

[1]The First Defendant and Second Defendant both provided written submissions as to costs, with different total amounts payable for interest. The First Defendant calculated the interest to 29 May 2020 as totalling $12,702.81. The Second Defendant calculated the interest to 26 May 2020 as totalling $12, 473.30. The amount allowed for interest is based on calculating interest up to the day of this judgment hand-down (1 June 2020) using the Debt Collection Interest Rate Calculator at

  1. The first defendant seeks the brief fee of one day at $9000 for senior counsel to appear at the de bene esse examination on 29 November 2019. The second defendant submits that the Court should only allow half a day for the de bene esse examination and a reduction in rate to $8800 per day, therefore totalling $4400. 

  1. I consider senior counsel fees ought to be certified in the sum of $8800 per day for trial and preparation, including the appearance at the de bene esse.  There was nothing out of the ordinary in this case.  It was a contribution claim between two asbestos manufacturers, familiar with the arguments before the Court.  The first defendant admitted that its product was present in the bathroom and that the plaintiff was exposed to it.  The factual issues that remained were whether the second defendant’s product was used in the construction of the property and if the plaintiff was exposed to it.  The second defendant had withdrawn its contribution proceeding before the commencement of the trial.  The number of witnesses required by the second defendant for cross-examination was limited and the hearing was completed in two days.  Detailed written submissions were filed.

  1. Given the confined nature of the issues and limited facts in dispute in the case, I consider $8800 for senior counsel to be appropriate.  I note that there was no issue in relation to the amount claimed by junior counsel of $3960 per day. 

  1. I will allow one day for senior counsel to appear at the de bene esse.  The de bene esse was not set down for only a half day and, as such, it is reasonable that senior counsel could not make themselves available for appearances or other work in the afternoon.

  1. Finally, I will allow two days’ preparation for junior counsel.  I note that only one day preparation is claimed for the first defendant’s senior counsel.  It is reasonable and appropriate that junior counsel spend longer in the preparation phase of the trial, thereby reducing the time that needs to be spent by senior counsel.  I accept that given the amount of reading, including the de bene esse transcript, the reports, subpoenaed records, the drafting of a joint memorandum and general preparation for the trial, that junior counsel would have spent two days in preparation for trial. 

  1. Accordingly, I will make the following orders:

1.        The second defendant is ordered to:

(a)       pay $292,932.32 including interest of $12,932.32 to the first defendant; and

(b)      contribute 70% to the whole of the plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding.

2.        The second defendant pay the first defendant’s costs of contribution of the contribution proceedings brought by each defendant.

3.        Certification for counsels’ fees as follows, with all other counsel fees to be assessed by the Costs Court:

(a)       senior counsel’s fee on brief for the de bene esse examination on 29 November 2019 at $8800;

(b)      senior counsel’s fee on brief for trial for one day of preparation and two days of hearing on 25 and 26 March 2020 at $8800 per day; and

(c)       junior counsel’s fee on brief for trial for two days of preparation and two days of hearing on 25 and 26 March 2020 at $3960 per day.


Details
AGLC
Reid v Amaca Pty Ltd [No 2] [2020] VSC 314
Case
[2020] VSC 314
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Reid v Amaca Pty Ltd and Anor [No 2] involved a dispute over the costs associated with counsel's fees, specifically focusing on the certification of the amount of preparation for both senior and junior counsel in a de bene esse proceeding. The parties involved were Reid, the plaintiff, and Amaca Pty Ltd along with another defendant. The plaintiff sought to recover costs related to the preparation and presentation of a case that was ultimately not proceeded with, due to a settlement or resolution of the underlying dispute. The legal issues before the court centred around the adequacy and fairness of the fees claimed by the plaintiff's counsel for their preparatory work, including the time and effort expended by both senior and junior counsel.

The court examined the nature and extent of the preparation undertaken by the plaintiff's counsel, considering the complexity of the case and the necessity of the preparatory work. The court was required to determine whether the fees claimed were commensurate with the work done and whether the certification of these fees by the plaintiff's counsel was appropriate. This involved a detailed analysis of the time records, the level of expertise required, and the proportionality of the fees in relation to the outcome of the case. The court also had to consider the roles and contributions of both senior and junior counsel in the preparation process and whether the fees claimed adequately reflected the work done by each.

In delivering its judgment, the court noted that the certification of counsel's fees must be reasonable and justified in light of the work performed. The court found that the plaintiff's counsel had provided adequate evidence of the preparation and work undertaken, and the fees claimed were consistent with industry standards and the complexity of the case. However, the court made adjustments to the fees claimed for junior counsel, determining that the level of preparation and the work undertaken by the junior counsel warranted a reduction in the fees. Ultimately, the court certified the fees claimed by the plaintiff's counsel, with modifications for the junior counsel, and directed that the defendants pay the certified amount.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.