Review of Costs Assessment/ Operation of time charging costs agreement/ Costs of Assessment

COSTS –Assessment –review of assessment under Legal Profession Act 2007 – approach to review – operation of time charging costs agreement – consideration of decision of assessor on certain items. COSTS – Assessment – review of assessment under Legal Profession Act 2007 – costs of assessment – purpose and effect of statutory provision – event of assessment – whether discretion miscarried – provisional re-exercise of discretion.

Chapman v Harris [2019] QDC 47

This matter was a review of a Costs Assessor Certificate of a Solicitor and Own Client Assessment of fees the Plaintiff was seeking from a former client. Importantly His Honour increased assessed fees $358,600.37 to $362,462.40 however otherwise upheld the Costs Assessment

1. Printing emails

Importantly His Honour allowed for the printing of emails for the file management. As stated at

[12] It seems to me that, as a matter of principle, it is a reasonable way in which to conduct a legal

practice for a solicitor to maintain a hard copy file, and where a solicitor is doing so, and it is

reasonable to include an electronic communication in the hard copy file, a charge for printing the

document can properly be made by the solicitor, at least in a case where the costs agreement

provides for a charge for printing” His Honour considered that it was important for print emails that

are important*. His Honour considered individual emails in respect to this.

* Electronic file management systems actually render the printing of emails as unnecessary. It can

be interpreted that it is not reasonable to NOT use electronic file management systems.

* How does a lawyer justifying the printing of an email and establish which email was more

important than another? Each communication is important. (with the exception of courtesy

acknowledgments)

2. Paralegal attendances

a. Perusing documents

His Honour upheld disallowances by paralegal to peruse documents that such as Company Searches

and disclosure. His Honour allowed attendances to compile and source the documents, not the

perusal of same as this was within the Paralegal’s skill set [17], [18], and [25]. At [24] His Honour

confirmed the Costs Assessors reductions in respect to the perusal of Cases. His Honour confirmed

that it was not within the Paralegal’s scope to consider to case. It was notated that it was inefficient

and that there no clear instructions in respect to the complying of the cases

3. Copying Documents

At [19] and [20] His Honour upheld the Costs Assessors determination in respect to the printing and

complying the Brief to Counsel. His Honour considered that the compiling of the Brief to Counsel

is claim in part in the printing expenses at 55c per page*.

* Compiling documents may be allowed when copying is charged at the commercial copying rate

20c per page and at Scale.

4. Time charging and items of work

At [28] His Honour upheld the Costs Assessors finding in respect to charging on a per item basis.

His Honour upheld the reductions in respect to charging two units to receive and reply to an email

as not reasonable.

* See Bethscheider v CMC Lawyers Pty Ltd [2018] QDC133

5. Costs of the Assessment

His Honour noted that the amount of the Plaintiff’s claim for fees was $674,249.54, and was

reduced to $382,759.41 accounting to a reduction of 43% of professional fees [124]. Accordingly in

accordance with the 15% rule the Plaintiff, was ordered to pay the Costs of the Assessment

including the Costs Assessors fees of $117,043.95.

The Plaintiff argued that the Costs Assessor miscarried as he did not exercise his discretion to the

Defendant’s Objections. His Honour noted that the Costs Assessor considered the Objections

concise and well-argued and that were of assistance and did not affect the Costs Assessment

negatively in any event.[114].

His Honour also noted that much of the Costs Assessors time was spent locating documents from a

poorly management file as noted by His Honour it “strikes me as a very good reason for the solicitor

to pay at least the extra costs caused in that way, regardless of the terms of s 342”. His Honour noted

that the onus is on the Costs Applicant to prove that the fees charged are reasonable and that the work

down was done in a reasonable way [117]. Gregg Lawyers Pty Ltd v Farrar [2014] QDC 194 at [104], [105]; MJ Arthur Pty Ltd v QS Law Pty Ltd [2018] QDC 150 at [185].