Legal Profession Act 2007 s 319 - Whether costs agreement made after trial valid and enforceable - whether agreement had retrospective operation

The decision in QCOAL Pty Ltd v Cliffs Australia Coal Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 479 involved an examination of a number of issues relating to the assessment of costs under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). The decision highlights a range of issues which, in slightly different circumstances, may have deprived the successful party of the right to recover costs by reference to the costs agreement.

Assessment of costs : challenge to validity of client agreement between party entitled to costs and its solicitors

In ASIC v Atlantic 3 Financial (Aust) Pty Ltd [2006] QCA 540 the Queensland Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the decision of Mullins J at first instance in ASIC v Atlantic 3 Financial (Aust) Pty LTd [2006] QSC 152, the majority concluding that the client agreement in issue was not inconsistent with s48 of the Queensland Law Society Act 1952.

Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) : costs agreement between law practice and client - whether binding on non-associated third party payer

The decision in the New South Wales Supreme Court in Boyce v McIntyre [2008] NSWSC 1218 involved determination of a number of issues relating to an assessment of costs under the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW). The issue of broad significance was whether a non-associated third party payer must pay the fixed fee that was agreed between the law practice and the client. The court found that the client agreement did not form the basis of assessing costs for the non-associated third party payer.

Costs - solicitor's retainer on 'no win, no fee' basis - meaning of 'win' - solicitor not entitled to recover excess of costs over amount paid on settlement - no consideration for variation of oral retainer.

In Baker Johnson Lawyers v Jorgensen [2002] QDC 205 McGill DCJ considered the meaning of a 'no win, no fee' retainer and concluded that, in the absence of qualification by agreement, solicitors retained on that basis were not entitled to recover costs exceeding the amount of any judgment or settlement.

Should the court direct that costs ordered to be recovered on the indemnity basis be assessed by reference to a costs agreement between the successful party and their solicitors?

The decision in Hook v Boreham & QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2006] QDC 304 considered whether the court should go further than order that costs be assessed on the indemnity basis, but should also specify the basis by which those indemnity costs should be determined. The decision makes it clear that under r704(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, questions of that nature are ordinarily preserved to the discretion of the Registrar.

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.

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.

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.

A clear view of costs ‘of and incidental to’ : Mio Art Pty Ltd v Macequest (No.2) Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 271

In Mio Art Pty Ltd v Macequest (No.2) Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 271 Jackson J provided considered analysis of several aspects of costs law. His Honour regarded various orders which are commonly sought or made as reflecting practice that is inappropriate or unnecessary under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR).

On the construction of costs: McDermott v Robinson Helicopter Company (No.2) [2014] QSC 213

The decision in McDermott v Robinson Helicopter Company (No 2) [2014] QSC 213 involves an extensive examination of authorities on the general principle relating to the awarding of costs to a successful party. The court concluded that there was a predilection in favour of distributing costs according to the outcome or 'event' of particular issues in the action.

Copy of bill of costs for Lewis Gomes' denization

Digital image

The acquisition of gender agreement in L3 English by Basque/Spanish bilinguals

211 p.