Search
This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian News

Balkan intrigues ... Old coppers stagger into the Croatian Six inquiry ... 15-year jail terms in 1980 for alleged terrorism ... Miscarriage of justice under review ... Verballing ... Loading-up ... Old fashioned detective "work" ... Evidence so far ... Hamish McDonald reports ... Read more >> 

Politics Media Law Society


Splitting heirs ... How to get rid of the Royals – a Republican tours Orstraya … Underneath their robes – sexual harassment on the bench … Credit card fees – so tricky that only economists know what to do … Muted response to Drumgold vindication … Vale Percy Allan ... Read on ... 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

Blue sky litigation ... Another costly Lehrmann decision ... One more spin on the never-never ... Arguable appeal discovered in the bowels of the Gazette of Law & Journalism ... Odious litigants ... Could Lee J have got it wrong on the meaning of rape? ... Calpurnia reports from the Defamatorium ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian's Bloggers

Online incitements ... Riots in English cities fed by online misinformation about refugees ... Policing and prosecution policies ... Fast and furious processing of offenders ... Online Safety Act grapples with new challenges ... Increased policing of speech on tech platforms ... Hugh Vuillier reports from London ... Read more >> 

"Mistakes of law or fact are a professional inevitability for judges, tribunal members and administrative decision makers."  

Paul Brereton, Commissioner of the National Corruption Concealment Commission, downplaying the Inspector's finding of bias and procedural unfairness with his conflicted involvement in the decision making about Robodebt referrals ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Vale Percy Allan AM ... Obit for friend and fellow-traveller ... Prolific writer on economics and politics ... Public finance guru ... Technocrat with humanity and broad interests ... Theatre ... Animals ... Art ... Read more ... 


Justinian's archive

A triumph for Victorian morality ... Ashton v Pratt ... In the sack with Dick Pratt ... Meretricious sexual services renders contract void on public policy grounds ... Justice Paul Brereton applies curious moral standard ... A whiff of hypocrisy ... Doubtful finding ... Artemus Jones reporting ... From Justinian's Archive, January 24, 2012 ... Who knew the NACC commissioner had strong views on the sanctity of marriage ... Read more ... 


 

 

« Drowning, not waving | Main | Keddies update »
Friday
Oct122012

Fee, fi, fo, fight 

Sydney silk in fees stoush with Brisbane law shop ... Court of Appeal refuses to strike out solicitors' defence and cross-claim ... Allegation of overcharging ... Ballooning estimates 

Chris Branson (left): upward revisions

CRUSTY Sydney warhorse Christopher Branson QC has had another setback in a row with a Brisbane law shop over his fees. 

The Court of Appeal, led by Smokin' Joe Campbell, has upheld a District Court decision of Judge Anne Quick dismissing Branson's move to strike out the law firm's defence and cross-claim. 

The firm, Tucker & Cowen, said that the barrister's fees were excessive. 

The story unfolded like this … 

Branson saddled-up in the Federal Court in a case called Alpine Beef v Trycill. He was successful, because the claim against Tucker & Cowen's clients was dismissed and indemnity costs were ordered. 

Beforehand Branson disclosed to the solicitors that he estimated his fees would be $900 an hour for reading, preparation, conferences, consultations, drafting and advising generally and that his bill for the trial would be $7,000 a day (all ex-GST). 

Notwithstanding the difficulty in estimating the time and work involved he thought his fees for the job would be approximately $65,000. 

The case was listed for hearing from December 14-18, 2009. 

He added that interest would be charged on payments more than 30 days late. 

As things trundled along Branson made a number of upward revisions of the estimate of his fees. 

By October 12, 2009 the estimate had gone up to $85,000. On December 4, 2009 it was $147,000 and a fortnight later it went to $179,000. 

In the end his total fees came to $252,147.50, which ex-GST was $229,225. 

He sent in five bills as the matter progressed. 

The first three and the fifth were paid promptly. 

The fourth memorandum of fees, dated December 18, 2009 for $109,532.50, was questioned. 

This bill related to work from December 7 to December 18, and covered the period of the Federal Court hearing. 

The law shop sought to have the amount assessed under the Legal Profession Act

The manager of costs assessment at the Supreme Court didn't examine the bill because the 60 day period allowed under the Act had lapsed. 

Branson's proposition was that since there had been no assessment of the costs the bill must simply be paid, without dispute. 

In June 2010 Branson filed a statement of claim in the Dizzo seeking to recover the money for his fourth bill. 

The following month Tucker & Cowen paid the disputed fees, saying they did so under protest and without prejudice and they would seek to recover any excessive amount that had been charged and paid. 

The respondents then filed a defence and cross claim. 

Branson's claim was limited to recovery of interest and costs and he wanted the defence and cross claim struck out, an application that was dismissed by Judge Quick. 

According to the CA reasons the respondents' complaints about the disputed bill were: 

  • On any day there was a hearing Branson charged both the quoted daily fee and separate fees for conferences; 
  • The full daily fee was charged for the fifth day of the trial, even though the actual hearing occupied only half-an-hour; 
  • From the commencement of the retainer until the day before the commencement of the trial, a total of 158 hours was charged for preparation. The time charged seemed excessive because the affidavit evidence of both sides at the trial occupied no more than two-and-a-half arch-lever folders. 
  • Over four days in December 2009 a total of 41 hours was charged for preparation of final submissions. Those submissions were produced by a collaborative effort of Branson, his junior and his instructing solicitor. The respondents said the time charged seemed excessive because the legal issues in the case "were not by any means novel". 
  • The fees charged significantly exceeded all the estimates; 
  • There was an implied term in the contract that Branson's fees would be fair and reasonable and that term was breached. 

There was much argument about Branson's contention was that Div 11 of the LPA provided "an exclusive scheme" for the assessment of bills of costs. 

He wanted an earlier CA decision in Attard v James Legal overturned.  

That was the case involving a dispute over solicitors' fees where the court referred the costs "to a referee experienced in the assessment of legal costs and disbursements". 

Anyway, Smokin' Joe and the others didn't think it was a good idea to grant leave to allow argument on whether aspects of Attard were wrongly decided. 

Reg Barrett J said that it was simply not the case that the LPA provided the only legally available means for the assessment of costs. 

Costs agreements can be enforced in the same way as any other contract. 

However, if advantage is taken of the LPA assessment procedure, the assessor's certificate may be filed in a court registry and this would translate into a deemed judgment debt. 

Once a judgment debt arises then there is no ground to recover or offset in contract. 

However, what is clear is that the LPA does not make untenable the defence and cross-claim filed by the solicitors. 

On it goes. 

See: Branson v Tucker 

See: Chris Branson's website

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
Editor Permission Required
You must have editing permission for this entry in order to post comments.