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.

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.

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.

Practice and Procedure: UCPR r 708 - costs order against several defendants and third party

Glenwood Homes Pty Ltd v Everhard [2008] QSC 192 involved the not uncommon situation where one costs order is made against several parties represented by a single firm of solicitors. Dutney J considered the implications when only some of the parties liable for the payment of the costs file a notice of objection to the costs statement served in respect of those costs.

Promotion and succession management and associated retention issues in Australian law firms

The focus of this research was promotion and succession management in Australian law firms. Two staff retention issues currently faced by the Australian legal industry were identified as suggesting possible failures in this area: 1) Practitioners are leaving law firms early in their careers, 2) Female representation is disproportionally low at partnership level. The research described current Australian law firm promotion and succession practices and then explained their possible relevance to the two retention issues. The overall aim of the research was to uncover key findings and present practical recommendations to law firm managers and partners ready for incorporation into their future promotion and succession planning practice. In so doing the research aimed to benefit the Australian legal community as a whole. Four areas of literature relevant to the topic were reviewed, 1) law firm governance concluding that the fundamental values of the P²-Form remained constant (Cooper, Hinings, Greenwood & Brown, 1996; Morris & Pinnington, 1998) with ownership and strategic control of law firms remaining in the hands of partners; 2) the importance of individual practitioners to law firms concluding that the actual and opportunity costs relating to practitioner turnover were significant due to the transient nature of knowledge as a key asset of law firms (Gottschalk & Khandelwal, 2004; Rebitzer & Taylor, 2007); 3) generational differences concluding with support for the work of Finegold, Mohrman and Spreitzer (2002), Davis, Pawlowski and Houston (2006), Kuhnreuther (2003), and Avery, McKay, and Wilson (2007) which indicated that generational cohort differences were of little utility in human resources management practice; and 4) previous research relating to law firm promotion and succession practices indicating that five practices were relevant in law firm promotion outcomes; 1) firm billing requirements (Gorman & Kmec, 2009; Phillips, 2001; Noonan & Corcoran, 2004; Webley & Duff, 2007); 2) mentoring programs (Phillips, 2001; Noonan & Corcoran, 2004); 3) the existence of female partners (Gorman & Kmec, 2009; Beckman & Phillips, 2005); 4) non-partner career paths (Phillips, 2001; Corcoran & Noonan, 2004); and 5) the existence of family friendly policies (Gorman & Kmec, 2009; Phillips, 2001; Noonan & Corcoran, 2004; Webley & Duff, 2007.) The research was carried out via a sequential mixed method approach. The initial quantitative study was based upon a theoretical framework grounded in the literature and provided baseline information describing Australian law firm promotion and succession practices. The study was carried out via an on-line survey of Australian law firm practitioners. The results of the study provided the basis for the second qualitative study. The qualitative study further explained the statistically generated results and focused specifically on the two identified retention issues. The study was conducted via one-on-one interviews with Australian law firm partners and experienced law firm managers. The results of both studies were combined within the context of relevant literature resulting in eight key findings: Key findings 1) Organisational commitment levels across generational cohorts are more homogenous than different. 2) Law firm practitioners are leaving law firms early in their careers due to the heavy time commitment behaviour demanded of them, particularly by clients. 3) Law firm promotion and succession practices reinforce practitioner time commitment behaviour marking it as an indicator of practitioner success. 4) Law firm practitioners believe that they have many career options outside law firms and are considering these options. 5) Female practitioners are considering opting out of law firms due to time commitment demands related to partnership conflicting with family commitment demands. 6) A masculine, high time commitment culture in law firms is related to the decision by female practitioners to leave law firms. 7) The uptake of alternative work arrangements by female practitioners is not fatal to their partnership prospects particularly in firms with supportive policies, processes and organisational culture. 8) Female practitioners are less inclined than their male counterparts to seek partnership as an ultimate goal and are more likely to opt out of law firms exhibiting highly competitive, masculine cultures. Practical recommendations Further review of the data collected in relation to the key findings provided the basis for nine practical recommendations specifically geared towards implementation by law firm managers and partners. The first recommendation relates to the use of generational differences in practitioner management. The next six relate to recommended actions to reduce the time commitment demands on practitioners. The final two recommendations relate to the practical implementation of these actions both at an individual and organisational level. The recommendations are as follows: 1) "Generationally driven," age based generalisations should not be utilised in law firm promotion and succession management practice. 2) Expected levels of client access to practitioners be negotiated on a client by client basis and be included in client retention agreements. 3) Appropriate alternative working arrangements such as working off-site, flexible working hours or part-time work be offered to practitioners in situations where doing so will not compromise client serviceability. 4) The copying of long working hour behaviours of senior practitioners should be discouraged particularly where information technology can facilitate remote client serviceability. 5) Refocus the use of timesheets from an employer monitoring tool to an employee empowerment tool. 6) Policies and processes relating to the offer of alternative working arrangements be supported and reinforced by law firm organisational culture. 7) Requests for alternative working arrangements be determined without regard to gender. 8) Incentives and employment conditions offered to practitioners to be individualised based on the subjective need of the individual and negotiated as a part of the current employee performance review process. 9) Individually negotiated employment conditions be negotiated within the context of the firm’s overall strategic planning process. Through the conduct of the descripto-explanatory study, a detailed discussion of current law firm promotion and succession practices was enabled. From this discussion, 7 eight key findings and nine associated recommendations were generated as well as an insight into the future of the profession being given. The key findings and recommendations provide practical advice to law firm managers and partners in relation to their everyday promotion and succession practice. The need to negotiate individual employee workplace conditions and their integration into overall law firm business planning was put forward. By doing so, it was suggested that both the individual employee and the employing law firm would mutually benefit from the arrangement. The study therefore broadened its practical contribution from human resources management to a contribution to the overall management practice of Australian law firms. In so doing, the research has provided an encompassing contribution to the Australian legal industry both in terms of employee welfare as well as firm and industry level success.

Federal Court Rules O23 r 11 - offers of compromise - offer for dismissal of claim and to forego recovery of costs.

In Uniline Australia Ltd ACN 010752057 v S Briggs Pty Ltd ACN 007415518 (No 2) [2009] FCA 920 Greenwood J considered a number of principles guiding the exercise of discretion in relation to costs, particularly when offers of compromise have been made under the formal process provided by the Federal Court Rules.

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.

Costs - UCPR rr 681 and 684

In BHP Coal Pty Ltd v K Orenstein & Koppel AG (No 2) [2009] QSC 64 McMurdo J considered the circumstances in which the ordinary rule under r 681 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) that costs should follow the event should be departed from in favour of a party who was unsuccessful overall, but who succeeded on particular questions. When the court is satisfied that a departure from the usual order under r 681 of the UCPR is justified, it appears increasingly willing to exercise the power in r 684(2) to declare what percentage of costs was applicable to a particular issue

Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) s 253 – whether refusal to stay execution of costs is an order “as to costs only”

In Virgtel Ltd v Zabusky [2009] QCA 92 the Queensland Court of Appeal considered the scope of an order “as to costs only” within the meaning of s 253 of the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) (‘the Act”). The Court also declined to accept submissions from one of the parties after oral hearing, and made some useful comments which serve as a reminder to practitioners of their obligations in that regard.

Disclosure obligations on ex parte application for freezing order - duty of practitioners to the court - failure to comply with duty - serious dereliction of duty to court - supplemental order for costs against solicitors personally

The decision of Applegarth J in Heartwood Architectural & Joinery Pty Ltd v Redchip Lawyers [2009] QSC 195 (27 July 2009) involved a costs order against solicitors personally. This decision is but one of several recent decisions in which the court has been persuaded that the circumstances justified costs orders against legal practitioners on the indemnity basis. These decisions serve as a reminder to practitioners of their disclosure obligations when seeking any interlocutory relief in an ex parte application. These obligations are now clearly set out in r 14.4 of the Legal Profession (Solicitors) Rule 2007 and r 25 of 2007 Barristers Rule. Inexperience or ignorance will not excuse breaches of the duties owed to the court.

Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) s 253 - leave to appeal costs orders - appeal against substantive judgment insufficient - must be arguable case that discretion will be overturned on appeal

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in AGL Sales (Qld) Pty Ltd v Dawson Sales Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 262 provides clear direction on the Court’s expectations of a party seeking leave to appeal a costs order.This decision is likely to impact upon common practice in relation to appeals against costs orders. It sends a clear message to trial judges that they should not give leave as of course when giving a judgment in relation to costs, and that parties seeking leave under s 253 of the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) should make a separate application. The application should be supported by material presenting an arguable case that the trial judge made an error in the exercise of the discretion of the kind described in House v King (1936) 55 CLR 499. A different, and interesting, aspect of this appeal is that it was the first wholly electronic civil appeal. The court-provided technology had been adopted at trial, and the Court of Appeal dispensed with any requirement for hard copy appeal record books.

Insights into special costs orders : WA court examines compliance and retrospectivity

In Walter v Buckeridge [No.5] [2012] WASC 495 Le Miere J considered an application by the defendants for special costs orders under the applicable legislation in Western Australia. Aspects of the decision may be of persuasive value in dealing with similar issues under Queensland legislation.

Patient Safety Law: From Silos to Systems

Patient safety has become a significant and pressing policy issue. Around the world, governments, the health care sector and the public are increasingly cognizant of the need to improve the safety of care delivered by their health systems. Pressure for change has been created by highly publicized incidents in a number of countries involving unsafe acts that were significant both in scale and consequence and a number of empirical studies that revealed the high rates of unsafe acts and their consequences. The costs of unsafe health care – both personal and fiscal – to individuals, their families and their communities and to the state are massive. In this research project we explored one particular avenue for change – that is, the use of legal instruments by governments to improve patient safety. We did this through a comparative review of the use of legal instruments or frameworks in other countries (specifically Australia, Denmark, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States) as well as two non-health care related sectors in Canada (transportation and occupational health and safety). We began this research by reviewing the legal instruments and undertaking extensive literature reviews. Further information was gathered through in-person interviews with policy-makers and academics in the countries studied, and from policy-makers and academics expert in the health, occupational health and safety, and transportation sectors in Canada. Once descriptions of the various countries and sectors were drafted, we held small-group meetings with local experts on particular aspects of patient safety. We then hosted a national consultation meeting. We subsequently drafted this final report and the appendices, which fully describe the results of the background research. Finally, we prepared a summary version of the report as well as posters and papers to be published and delivered at conferences and meetings with relevant groups.