Robertson v Boe Williams Lawyers

Robertson has appealed against the judgment of the District Court of Queensland, which refused an originating application for an assessment of legal costs. The application sought to determine costs based on a trust account statement. The applicant also sought to be substituted by Trevor Henry Croll, who had taken an assignment of all relevant choses in action from Robertson. Finally, Robertson sought an itemised bill under section 332 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). The primary judge refused all three applications. Robertson now applies for leave to appeal, pursuant to section 118(3) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld). The court must determine whether an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice or whether there is a reasonable argument that there is an error to be corrected.

The court found that the primary judge's refusal of the originating application was correct. The trust account statement was not an appropriate document for determining legal costs. The court also found that the refusal of the application to substitute Mr Croll as the applicant was correct, as the originating application was bound to fail. The court found that the refusal of the itemised bill application was also correct, as it was out of time. The court found that there was no substantial injustice caused by the primary judge's decisions, and that there was no reasonable argument that there was an error to be corrected.

Accordingly, the court dismissed Robertson's application for leave to appeal. The appeal is dismissed with costs.