Jury option needs early verdict

The decision in Rubin v Buchanan [2011] QSC 275 confirms that a trial by jury should be considered at the outset of a proceeding.

Accounting for costs

In Golder Associates Pty Ltd v Challen [2012] QDC 11 Samios DCJ recognised a solicitor’s lien over the file for unpaid fees and confirmed that a lien should not be lightly set aside. The decision, which is under appeal, adds to the range of authorities which are now grappling with some of the provisions of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) (the LPA) relating to costs billing and assessment. These would appear to have been drafted without a great deal of intellectual rigour (cf. Turner v Mitchells Solicitors [2011] QDC 61 at [26]).

Pro Bono - But what about costs?

The decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal in King v King demonstrates that in proceedings in Queensland Courts legal practitioners acting pro bono should still consider at the outset whether it is desired to provide for recovery of costs which might be recovered from another party.

Default judgment set aside without costs

A recent District Court case is believed to be the first in Queensland in which UCPR r 5 has been used to support the setting aside of a regularly entered default judgment without a costs order.

Non-party disclosure - UCPR r 242(2)

In TSPD Pty Ltd v Resortrez Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 001 Fryberg J made an order permitting the applicant to inspect and copy documents which had been produced to the court under a subpoena, but had remained in the registry. Though not essential to the decision the judgment contains some interesting discussion about the construction of r 242 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR).

UCPR rule 687 - exercise of discretion to fix costs - applicable principles

Although the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) have always included a power for the court to order a party to pay an amount for costs to be fixed by the court, until recently the power was rarely used in the higher courts. In light of recent practice directions, and the changes to the procedures for assessment of costs contained in the new Chapter 17A of the UCPR, this is no longer the case. The judgment of Mullins J in ASIC v Atlantic 3 Financial (Aust) Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 9 provides some helpful guidance for practitioners about the principles which might be applied.

District Court of Queensland Act 1968 s 68 : jurisdiction in pre-proceedings applications under Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002

In Woolworths Ltd v Graham [2007] QDC 301 Searles DCJ struck out a pre-proceedings application under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld)on the basis that the material before the Court was not sufficient to attract the jurisdiction of the District Court.The decision serves more broadly as a reminder that the District Court is an inferior court of defined and limited jurisdiction and that any proceedings brought in it must be demonstrably within the jurisdiction conferred on that court by legislation.

Corporations Act 2001 s 459G : application to set aside statutory demand

The application before the court in Millerview Constructions Pty Ltd v Palmer Plumbing Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 005 raised a significant question regarding the appropriate construction of s 459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act). The decision emphasises the importance of ensuring that any application to set aside a statutory demand must be served in a timely way on the creditor at the creditor’s address for service as stated in the statutory demand, or in strict compliance with another manner authorised by the Act.

Principles on assessment of costs on standard basis – necessary or proper

The judgement in Hennessey Glass and Aluminium Pty Ltd v Watpac Australia Pty Ltd [2007] QDC 57 McGill DCJ provides valuable guidance for practitioners as to whether a range of particular costs items should be permitted on an assessment on the standard basis, and the amounts which should be allowed for such items. The items in issue included counsel’s fees and fees paid to expert witnesses. The decision also examined GST implications for the recovery of legal costs.

Will the application of spatial multi criteria evaluation technique enhance the quality of decision-making to resolve boundary conflicts in the Philippines?

Systematic studies that evaluate the quality of decision-making processes are relatively rare. Using the literature on decision quality, this research develops a framework to assess the quality of decision-making processes for resolving boundary conflicts in the Philippines. The evaluation framework breaks down the decision-making process into three components (the decision procedure, the decision method, and the decision unit) and is applied to two ex-post (one resolved and one unresolved) and one ex-ante cases. The evaluation results from the resolved and the unresolved cases show that the choice of decision method plays a minor role in resolving boundary conflicts whereas the choice of decision procedure is more influential. In the end, a decision unit can choose a simple method to resolve the conflict. The ex-ante case presents a follow-up intended to resolve the unresolved case for a changing decision-making process in which the associated decision unit plans to apply the spatial multi criteria evaluation (SMCE) tool as a decision method. The evaluation results from the ex-ante case confirm that the SMCE has the potential to enhance the decision quality because: a) it provides high quality as a decision method in this changing process, and b) the weaknesses associated with the decision unit and the decision procedure of the unresolved case were found to be eliminated in this process.

Full circle on costs

This article considers the implications of the decision in Paroz v Clifford Gouldson Lawyers [2012] QDC 151, which examined provisions of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) dealing with costs disclosure and assessment, and also considered associated provisions of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).

Court overrides costs assessment limits

This article considers the implications for Queensland practitioners of the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Branson v Tucker [2012] NSWCA 310. That decision involved the question whether the court retained a jurisdiction to examine the reasonableness of costs charged by a barrister, who had entered a costs agreement with solicitors, in circumstances where where had been no application under the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) for an assessment of the costs the subject of the bill and it was no longer possible for such an application to be made.

Offer to settle a taxing question

This article considers the implications of the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Commissioner of Taxation v Clark (No 2). In that case the Court examined the position of the Commissioner of Taxation as a litigant. In particular, the court examined the significance of the commissioner's duty to administer taxation legislation on the court's exercise of discretion relating to costs orders when offers to settle have been made.

Legal Profession Act 2007 : entitlement to itemised bill – meaning of “client” – meaning of “third party payer”

In Legal Services Commissioner and Wright [2010] QSC 168 and Amos v Ian K Fry & Company, the Supreme Court of Queensland considered the scope of some of the provisions of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), including the definition of “third party payer” in s 301 of the Act.