Sunba v Harnett Lawyers

Link copied
Case Copied 12 min read

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Sunba v Harnett Lawyers [2014] QDC 34

PARTIES:

KEIKO SUNBA
(Applicant)

v

HARTNETT LAWYERS
(Respondent)

FILE NO.:

139/2014

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 February 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 January 2014

JUDGE:

Reid DCJ

ORDER:

1.   That the respondent deliver to the applicant all documents which comprise all parts of the file of the respondent concerning the applicant to which she is entitled and which have not already been delivered; and

2.   That the originating application is otherwise transferred to the Magistrates Court pursuant to s 28 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 to be brought on by either party giving seven days clear notice in writing to the other

3.   Costs of the application be each party’s costs in the proceedings.

CATCHWORDS:

Assessment of courts – relevant court – itemised bill – delivery of file – whether orders sought are ancilliary to assessment – jurisdiction

Legal Profession Act 2007: s. 335(3)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999: rr. 743, 743A, 743G

Civil Proceedings Act 2011: s. 28.

COUNSEL:

R. Dixon for the applicant

G. Robinson for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Evans & Company for the applicant

Hartnett Lawyers for the respondent

  1. The respondent is the solicitor who acted for the applicant in matrimonial proceedings.  They delivered a number of bills, all relating to that ongoing matter, totalling $135,095.29.  That sum has all been paid by the applicant with the exception of $18,257.99 which has been retained by the respondent, by agreement, in its trust account in the name of the applicant pending determination of this dispute.

  1. The applicant commenced these proceedings in which she seeks assessment of all legal costs pursuant to r. 743A of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (UCPR) on 16 January 2014.  The application sought the following orders:

1.Assessment of legal costs, being all of the professional costs and outlays charged by the respondent to the applicant relative to matrimonial matters and for which tax invoices were issued, as follows:

(a)(a list, by number and dollar amount of 22 separate invoices, the most recent of 29 January 2013, and totalling a $135,095.21 was then renumerated.)

2.Within twenty-eight (28) days, and before commencement of the assessment the respondent deliver to the applicant at the office of her solicitors itemised bills with respect to each of the tax invoices referred to in the previous sub-paragraph and setting out:

(a)       full details of each item of work done;

(b)       the date each item of work was done;

(c)       the basis of the charge for the work;

(d)the amount charged for carrying out each item of work; and

(e)the name of each person who carried out the work.

3.The assessments be carried out by Mr Glen Robert Walter whose hourly rate is $275.00 inclusive of GST;

4.Within seven (7) days after the delivery of itemised bills the respondent is to deliver to the applicant all documents which comprise all parts of the file of the respondent concerning…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sunba v Harnett Lawyers and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2014] QDC 34
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application by Sunba against Harnett Lawyers, where the applicant sought an assessment of the respondent's account and a delivery of the file. The application was initially filed in the Supreme Court, but the respondent argued that the matter should be transferred to the Magistrates Court as it was an assessment of a legal account which did not exceed the jurisdictional limit of the Magistrates Court. The applicant, however, argued that the orders sought were ancillary to the assessment of the account, and thus should remain in the Supreme Court.

The court was required to determine whether the orders sought by the applicant were ancillary to the assessment of the account, and thus could remain in the Supreme Court, or whether the matter should be transferred to the Magistrates Court as the respondent contended. The court noted that the applicant's request for an itemised bill and the delivery of the file were ancillary to the assessment of the account, and thus could remain in the Supreme Court. However, the court also noted that the assessment of the account itself was a matter which fell within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court.

The court ultimately determined that the orders sought by the applicant were ancillary to the assessment of the account, but that the assessment of the account itself fell within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court. The court thus transferred the matter to the Magistrates Court, pursuant to section 28 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011, with the orders that the respondent deliver to the applicant all documents which comprise all parts of the file of the respondent concerning the applicant to which she is entitled and which have not already been delivered, and that the costs of the application be each party’s costs in the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the respondent deliver to the applicant all documents which comprise all parts of the file of the respondent concerning the applicant to which she is entitled and which have not already been delivered; and

2. That the originating application is otherwise transferred to the Magistrates Court pursuant to s 28 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 to be brought on by either party giving seven days clear notice in writing to the other

3. Costs of the application be each party’s costs in the proceedings.

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.