Sundell v Queensland Housing Commission

The case of *Sundell v Queensland Housing Commission* involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia concerning the taxation of costs awarded to the successful appellant, Sundell. The dispute arose from an arbitration award in favour of Sundell, which had been set aside by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland. Sundell's subsequent appeal to the High Court was successful, leading to this application for a review of the taxing officer's decisions regarding the appellant's bill of costs.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the taxing officer had erred in principle or made a mistake in reducing counsel's fees on brief, refresher fees, and conference fees, and whether the disallowance of fees for a third counsel was justified. The appellant argued that the complexity of the agreement, the commercial importance of the appeal, the detailed evidence involved, the length of the hearing, and the fact that the respondent briefed four counsel warranted higher fees and the inclusion of a third counsel.

The Court, in its reasoning, affirmed that mere questions of quantum of fees are not open to review unless a wrong principle has been applied or a mistake made by the taxing officer. Applying this principle, the Court found that despite the significant sums involved and the importance of the case, the appeal primarily concerned the interpretation of contract provisions and the effect of an arbitration submission, and did not involve a review of evidence in the High Court. The Court concluded that the taxing officer had not applied a wrong principle or made a mistake in reducing counsel's fees. Regarding the disallowance of a third counsel, the Court held that the employment of a third counsel is an unusual expense and requires a case to be wholly special and peculiar, involving extraordinary complications and difficulty, which was not demonstrated here. The Court noted that the respondent had briefed four counsel, but this did not automatically justify a third counsel for the appellant.

The High Court dismissed the application for review, upholding the taxing officer's disallowances. The appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed with costs, and the order of Gibson A.J. was restored.