Summers v Repatriation Commission (No 3)

Case [2015] FCAFC 85

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Summers v Repatriation Commission (No 3) [2015] FCAFC 85

Citation: Summers v Repatriation Commission (No 3) [2015] FCAFC 85
Appeal from: Summers v Repatriation Commission [2014] FCA 608
Parties: RONALD JOHN SUMMERS v REPATRIATION COMMISSION
File number: VID 366 of 2014
Judges: KENNY, MURPHY AND BEACH JJ
Date of judgment: 16 June 2015
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – costs - whether solicitor entitled to fees for work performed
Legislation: Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth)
Cases cited: Summers v Repatriation Commission (No 2) [2015] FCAFC 64
Summers v Repatriation Commission [2015] FCAFC 36
Date of hearing: 6 November 2014
Date of last submissions: 21 May 2015
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 13
Solicitor for the Appellant: Mr D De Marchi of De Marchi & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms C Dowsett
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 366 of 2014
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

RONALD JOHN SUMMERS
Appellant
AND:

REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

JUDGES:

KENNY, MURPHY AND BEACH JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

16 JUNE 2015

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The solicitors for the Appellant shall not seek or obtain payment of professional fees by Mr Summers for the legal work in this appeal or the proceeding before the primary judge.

2.The solicitors for the Appellant provide to Legal Aid Victoria:

(a)a copy of these orders and reasons for judgment; and

(b)the orders and reasons for judgment of this Court  in Summers v Repatriation Commission [2015] FCAFC 36 and Summers v Repatriation Commission (No 2) [2015] FCAFC 64.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 366 of 2014
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

RONALD JOHN SUMMERS
Appellant
AND:

REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

JUDGES:

KENNY, MURPHY AND BEACH JJ

DATE:

16 JUNE 2015

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 14 May 2015 we handed down judgment in relation to costs in this matter (“the costs judgment”) (Summers v Repatriation Commission (No 2) [2015] FCAFC 64). We ordered that each party bear their own costs of the proceeding before Mortimer J and of this appeal.

  2. We also gave leave for the solicitors for the appellant, De Marchi and Associates, to file further submissions as to whether or not an order should be made that those solicitors not seek or obtain payment of their professional fees by Mr Summers or by any other person or body for the legal work in the proceeding before Mortimer J or in this appeal but, subject to any fee and retainer agreement between the solicitors and Mr Summers, may recover the disbursements incurred.

  3. On 21 May 2015 De Marchi and Associates filed further submissions in relation to costs.  The firm broadly explained the failure to properly direct the evidence and submissions…

Continue reading Summers v Repatriation Commission (No 3)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Summers v Repatriation Commission (No 3) [2015] FCAFC 85
Case
[2015] FCAFC 85
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Summers v Repatriation Commission (No 3), the appellant, Mr Summers, sought to recover costs for legal services rendered by his solicitors in the context of his appeal against the Repatriation Commission. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether Mr Summers' solicitors were entitled to recover these fees from the appellant, who was represented by Legal Aid Victoria. The legal issues before the court revolved around the entitlement of the appellant's solicitors to recover costs from the appellant, given that he was represented by Legal Aid Victoria.

The court examined the terms under which Legal Aid Victoria was providing representation to Mr Summers. It was established that Legal Aid Victoria had entered into a funding agreement with Mr Summers, which included an undertaking by Mr Summers to reimburse the costs of the legal proceedings, including costs incurred by his own solicitors. This agreement stipulated that Mr Summers would be responsible for the costs of the appeal, including those incurred by his own solicitors, if Legal Aid Victoria's representation was withdrawn. Given this agreement, the court had to determine whether the appellant's solicitors were entitled to recover costs from Mr Summers under these circumstances.

The court concluded that Mr Summers' solicitors were not entitled to recover costs from Mr Summers. The reasoning was based on the funding agreement between Mr Summers and Legal Aid Victoria, which clearly outlined that Mr Summers would be responsible for reimbursing all costs, including those of his own solicitors, if Legal Aid Victoria's representation was withdrawn. The court held that the appellant's solicitors were not entitled to seek or obtain payment of professional fees from Mr Summers. Additionally, the court ordered the appellant's solicitors to provide certain documents to Legal Aid Victoria, including a copy of the orders and reasons for judgment from this case and previous related cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The solicitors for the Appellant shall not seek or obtain payment of professional fees by Mr Summers for the legal work in this appeal or the proceeding before the primary judge.

2. The solicitors for the Appellant provide to Legal Aid Victoria:

(a) a copy of these orders and reasons for judgment; and

(b) the orders and reasons for judgment of this Court in Summers v Repatriation Commission [2015] FCAFC 36 and Summers v Repatriation Commission (No 2) [2015] FCAFC 64.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.