The danger of the “Welcome Pack” Todorovska v Brydens Lawyers Pty Ltd A vitally important judgement for legal practitioners in the personal injury field but… Read More »Costs Disclosure in Personal Injury Claims – The Danger of the “Welcome Pack”
In this podcast, Pattison Hardman Principal Charles Ackroyd talks about the seemingly unending saga of Coshott and Spencer. More information about the case of Coshott… Read More »The Unending Saga of Coshott and Spencer
The central issue in Behnia v Sarraf  NSWDC 138, was where a final order is made does it override an earlier costs orders. In Behnia the final order in the Supreme Court proceedings… Read More »Costs of the Proceedings – An overriding order?
Meaningful Disclosure -Section 174(3) – A Victorian Perspective In my previous article I examined the Judgment of Walton J in Malvina Park Pty Ltd v… Read More »Cost Disclosure and Informed Consent – Does Your Client Really Understand? A Victorian Perspective
MEANINGFUL DISCLOSURE -SECTION 174(3) OF LPUL Division 3 of Part 4.3 of the LPUL is styled “costs disclosure”. Section 174(3) sits within and creates an… Read More »Cost Disclosure and Informed Consent – Does Your Client Really Understand?
Rose Bilson (a Pseudonym) -v- Domini Esposito Solicitors S ECI 2019 03598, is a decision from the Costs Court in Victoria and is a decision… Read More »Is a solicitor who retained in their own capacity a commercial client?
A retainer with a law firm is a contract. Like most contracts, the parties’ rights are also impacted by the overlay of statue law which… Read More »The Client and the Obligation to Pay Legal Fees & Costs
The High Court has today handed down the highly anticipated decision in Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Janet Pentelow & Anor  HCA 29. The… Read More »A fool for a client – Chorley expunged!
The perils of issuing a statutory demand for fees In this first of what is likely to be an ongoing series of articles, we look… Read More »The perils of issuing a statutory demand for fees
Is a tax invoice an itemised bill? An interesting case came out of Supreme Court Victoria court of Appeal recently addressing what constitutes an itemised… Read More »When Is a Tax Invoice an “Itemised Bill”
What’s the difference? The question was recently considered by the Federal Court of Australia in Romero v Farstad Shipping (Indian Pacific) Pty Ltd (No 4)… Read More »“Without Prejudice” or “Without Prejudice Save As to Costs”
As a general rule solicitors engage barristers to undertake specialized work for their clients. This often requires briefing the barrister to appear at the hearing. … Read More »Barrister’s Cancellation Fees – Payment for One’s Non-Service!
Fixing Breaches of Disclosure: Rule 72A Provides Opportunity for legal practitioners to remedy non-compliance with LPUL
The new regime, under the Legal Profession Uniform Law, varied the non-compliance consequence concerning a solicitor’s costs agreement and non-disclosure. Under the old regime of… Read More »Fixing Breaches of Disclosure: Rule 72A Provides Opportunity for legal practitioners to remedy non-compliance with LPUL
(and a warning for plaintiffs)
Also published in adapted format in Law Society Journal, September 2006, Volume 44, page 38
The New South Wales Court of Appeal decision of Boylan Nominees Pty Limited v Williams Refrigeration Australia Pty Limited  NSW CA 100 is clearly welcome news for successful defendants in personal injury actions and a warning to plaintiffs not to rely on the Civil Liability Act for complete protection in the conduct of unmeritorious actions.
This article considers the significance of the recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia in APC Marine Pty Limited v The Ship APC Aussie 1  FCA 679.
Specifically, the decision considers an application for a Review from a Taxation Officer on the basis that the allowance made for ‘General Care and Conduct’ on the original Taxation of Costs under Schedule 2, Federal Court Rules was too generous.
The General Care and Conduct allowance made by the Taxation Officer was twice the maximum range recommended in the National Guide to Discretionary Items published by the Federal Court of Australia. The Review by the Federal Court of Australia upheld this allowance.
The nature of the system for taxation of costs in the Federal Court of Australia means there is a dearth of published authority on allowances for General Care and Conduct on party party costs and the article considers both the significance of the decision and whether the decision sets a precedent for departure from the National Guide and more generous General Care and Conduct allowances in future taxations.
Given the introduction of the New Federal Court Rules on 1.8.11 the article also compares the relevant criteria for calculating such uplifts under the Old and New Federal Court Rules.
The Proportionality principle has historically played a significant but unclear role on costs assessments.