APPLICATION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR THE FILING OF A REVIEW OF A COSTS ASSESSOR’S CERTIFICATE

CIVIL LAW – APPLICATION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR THE FILING OF A REVIEW OF A COSTS ASSESSOR’S CERTIFICATE – where the application for review was filed late - where the solicitor for the applicant held an erroneous belief as to the operative date - where the solicitors held instructions to file an application for review – where there was no material prejudice to the respondent due to the delay – where there was non-compliance with rule 742(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules

Retchless & others v Lister [2016] QDC 28

In this matter, an application was filed to extend the time for the filing of a review of a costs assessors certificate. Under r 742 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, “A party dissatisfied with the decision included in a costs assessor’s certificate of assessment may apply to the court to review the decision. The application for review must be filed ... 14 days after the party receives those reasons”.

Reasons were provided by the cost assessor on 11 November but the application for review was not filed until 29 November. This was due to an error within the offices of the solicitors for the applicant as the solicitor did not see the reasons until 14 November and erroneously calculated the 14-day period.

Rackemann DCJ had regard to the fact that it was the solicitor’s error not the applicants themselves, that the solicitors for the applicant communicated to the respondent’s solicitors their instructions to file an application for review within the time for filing such an application, that the application was only filed four days late and that there was “no real basis to contend that there was any material prejudice to the defendant/respondent in being able to meet the application because of that delay of a few days” (at [3]). The judge was prepared to extend the time.

Further, the defendant/respondent contended that the application for review was deficient because it did not attach the written reasons and because the application broadly stated the three respects of which a review was sought. The judge noted that the application should have been more specific as to the objections however the solicitor for the respondent/defendant was sufficiently apprised of the case they must meet. Accordingly, the judge excused any non-compliance with the provisions of r 742(3).

Rackemann DCJ ordered that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.