Southwell v Jackson

Case [2012] QDC 65

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Southwell v Jackson [2012] QDC 65

PARTIES:

IRENE ELIZABETH SOUTHWELL AND IRENE JOYCE KENNEDY
(Applicants)

AND

AMANDA JACKSON
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

OA3292/08

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Review of costs assessment

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 April 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 March 2012

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Order that on the review the certificate of the costs assessor filed 5 August 2011 certifying the costs assessed pursuant to an undated itemised bill at $29,972.37 be varied so that the costs payable pursuant to the bill becomes $21,004.37, comprising professional fees of $20,439.12 and disbursements of $565.25, and after deducting from the professional fees the applicants’ costs of the assessment assessed at $6,323.88. On the review the other two certificates of the costs assessor filed 5 August 2011 are confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

COSTS – Solicitor and Client – assessment of itemised bills – whether whole assessment ought to be set aside

COSTS – Solicitor and Client – assessment of itemised bills – when retainer terminated – whether care and consideration claimable – whether cost of itemised bills claimable

Legal Profession Act 2007 s 340(1), s 341(1)

UCPR r 719, r 742

Amos v Monsour [2009] QCA 123 – cited.
Attorney-General (NSW) v Kennedy Miller Television Pty Ltd (1998) 43 NSWLR 729 – applied.
Auspine Ltd v Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd [1996] FCA 673 – considered.
B.P. Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266 – cited.
Brookfield v Davey Products Pty Ltd [1997] FCA 1462 – cited.
Re: Carter Newell’s Bill of Costs [1996] 2 Qd R 13 – cited.
Carter v Northmore Hale Davy & Leake (1995) 183 CLR 121 – cited.
Cockerill v Collins [1999] 2 Qd R 26 – cited.
Corporate Affairs Commission (NSW) v Yuill (1991) 172 CLR 319 – cited.
Fleming v Fleming [2009] Fam CA 552 – distinguished.
Mastronardi v New South Wales [2007] NSWCA 54 – cited.
Minister for Immigration v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507 – cited.
Re: Moore [1996] QSC 212 – cited.
Monie v Commonwealth of Australia (2005) 63 NSWLR 729 – cited.
Nationwide News v Naidu [2007] NSWCA 377 – cited.
Roderick v Telecommunications Corporation (1992) 39 FCR 134 – cited.
Schweppes’ Ltd v Archer (1934) 34 SR (NSW) 178 – applied.
South Western Sydney Area Health Service v Edmonds [2007] NSWCA 16 – cited.
Tasty Chicks Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (2011) 85 ALJR 1183 – cited.
Wide Bay Conservation Council Inc. v Burnett Water Pty Ltd (No. 9) [2011] FCA 661 – cited.
Re: Wingfield & Blew [1904] 2 Ch 665 - applied.

COUNSEL:

G.J. Robinson for the applicants

The respondent in person

N.P. Hiscox for the costs assessor

SOLICITORS:

Crouch & Co for the applicant

The respondent represented herself

  1. On 25 November 2008 the applicants applied to the court for an order that three itemised bills they had received from the respondent be assessed under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (“the Act”).…

Continue reading Southwell v Jackson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Southwell v Jackson [2012] QDC 65
Case
[2012] QDC 65
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Southwell sought review of costs assessed against them by a costs assessor. Jackson, the respondent, had been awarded costs in the original proceedings, and Southwell appealed the assessment of those costs. The dispute centred on the assessment of itemised bills for legal services rendered and the costs associated with terminating the retainer. The court was tasked with determining whether the entire assessment should be set aside and whether certain costs were claimable after the retainer was terminated.

The legal issues before the court included whether the whole assessment should be set aside and if the care and consideration claimed after the retainer was terminated were indeed claimable. Additionally, the court had to decide if the costs of the itemised bills were properly assessed. The court had to carefully review the certificates of the costs assessor and the claims made by both parties.

The court found that the costs assessor had made errors in his assessment. Specifically, the court found that the entire assessment should not be set aside, but that certain adjustments were necessary. The court reduced the amount payable by Southwell from $29,972.37 to $21,004.37, taking into account the professional fees and disbursements, and deducting the costs of the assessment. The court also confirmed the other two certificates of the costs assessor.

The final orders of the court were to vary the certificate of the costs assessor filed on 5 August 2011 so that the costs payable pursuant to the bill became $21,004.37. The court confirmed the other two certificates of the costs assessor.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order that on the review the certificate of the costs assessor filed 5 August 2011 certifying the costs assessed pursuant to an undated itemised bill at $29,972.37 be varied so that the costs payable pursuant to the bill becomes $21,004.37, comprising professional fees of $20,439.12 and disbursements of $565.25, and after deducting from the professional fees the applicants’ costs of the assessment assessed at $6,323.88. On the review the other two certificates of the costs assessor filed 5 August 2011 are confirmed.

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.