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 obligation that did not exist under its predecessor, namely that: (3) Client’s consent and understanding If a disclosure is made under subsection (1), the law practice must take all reasonable…
DetailsRose Bilson (a Pseudonym) -v- Domini Esposito Solicitors S ECI 2019 03598, is a decision from the Costs Court in Victoria and is a decision of a Judicial Registrar. It does raise important thoughts about lawyers retaining another lawyer/Legal Practice, not in the capacity of doing specialised work, such as a barrister or a tax…
DetailsFrom Allocatur to Incipitur We are now seeing the effect of the (not quite so) recent changes to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 being applied in cost assessments in relation to interest. S101(4) of the CPA now reads: (4) Unless the court orders otherwise, interest is payable on an amount payable under an order for…
Details
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 may imply contractual terms. An example is a prohibition on misleading a person as required under the Australian Consumer Law. A costs agreement with a law practice may also have to…
DetailsThe High Court has today handed down the highly anticipated decision in Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Janet Pentelow & Anor [2019] HCA 29. The Chorley exception There is a general rule that a self-represented litigant is not entitled to professional costs for acting for himself or herself in legal proceedings. The Chorley exception was…
DetailsThe perils of issuing a statutory demand for fees In this first of what is likely to be an ongoing series of articles, we look at the matter of Rusca Bros Services Pty Ltd v DLaw Pty Ltd, in the matter of Rusca Bros Services Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 562 determined by Markovic J on…
Details
