Dennis v Cameron [2007] NSWCA 228

Dennis v Cameron [2007] NSWCA 228

The appeal failed because the amended memoranda of fees had to be considered as part of the overall billing process: the original memoranda had been accompanied by letters signed by the barrister, the amended memoranda were sent at the solicitor's request to delete contingency fees and were otherwise identical, and the solicitor accepted them without complaint. In those circumstances there was sufficient compliance with s 194(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1987, or the solicitor was precluded from denying their validity after treating them as proper bills. The memoranda also complied with cl 22A of the Legal Profession Regulations 1994, including sub-cl (h), because the particulars in...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal From District Court Judgment in Proceedings by a Barrister Against a Solicitor for Unpaid Fees / Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
["recovery of Barrister's Fees" 'bill of Costs Requirements' 'signature on Bill of Costs' 'legal Profession Act 1987 Ss 192(1), 194(1)' 'legal Profession Regulations 1994 Cl 22 A']
['legal Profession' 'costs' 'civil Procedure'] ["recovery of Barrister's Fees" 'bill of Costs Requirements' 'signature on Bill of Costs' 'legal Profession Act 1987 Ss 192(1), 194(1)' 'legal Profession Regulations 1994 Cl 22 A']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From District Court Judgment in Proceedings by a Barrister Against a Solicitor for Unpaid Fees / Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the barrister's proceedings were barred by s 192(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1987 because a compliant bill of costs had not been given." 'Whether amended memoranda of fees that were not themselves signed complied with s 194(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1987.' 'Whether the memoranda of fees complied with cl 22A of the Legal Profession Regulations 1994.' 'Whether it was necessary to decide whether the February 2001 agreement meant the claim was not properly characterised as proceedings for recovery of costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the amended memoranda of fees had to be considered as part of the overall billing process: the original memoranda had been accompanied by letters signed by the barrister, the amended memoranda were sent at the solicitor's request to delete contingency fees and were otherwise identical, and the solicitor accepted them without complaint. In those circumstances there was sufficient compliance with s 194(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1987, or the solicitor was precluded from denying their validity after treating them as proper bills. The memoranda also complied with cl 22A of the Legal Profession Regulations 1994, including sub-cl (h), because the particulars in...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' 'Appellant pay the costs of the appeal.']