Smoel and Wooster v Piper Alderman (No 2)

The respondents sought to review the costs awarded to the appellants. The appellants, Smoel and Wooster, had successfully sued the respondent, Piper Alderman, for professional negligence in relation to advice given on a property transaction. The respondents, who were the solicitors, sought to review the costs awarded to the appellants, arguing that the costs should have been itemised rather than lump sum. The application was brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The legal issue before the court was whether the costs claimed by the appellants' solicitors were lump sum costs or itemised costs, and if the latter, whether they were sufficiently itemised to comply with the relevant legislation and court rules. The court noted that the appellants' solicitors had not provided an itemised bill, but rather a schedule of disbursements and a letter setting out their costs. The court held that the bills were lump sum bills, and that the appellants were not required to provide an itemised bill. The court found that the appellants' solicitors had not breached any statutory or procedural requirements in claiming their costs, and that the respondents' application to review the costs should be dismissed. The court found that the appellants' solicitors had not breached any statutory or procedural requirements in claiming their costs, and that the respondents' application to review the costs should be dismissed. The court noted that the appellants' solicitors had provided a detailed schedule of disbursements and a letter setting out their costs, which was sufficient to comply with the relevant legislation and court rules. The court held that the costs awarded to the appellants were reasonable and appropriate, and that there was no basis for the respondents to challenge the costs on the grounds that they were not itemised. The court dismissed the respondents' application to review the costs, with costs.