Rule of Thumb/ 2/3 rule considered on Application to fix costs

Peter Campbell Earthmoving Pty Ltd v Plentygold Miclere Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] QLC 28

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – where Court ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant’s costs – where the Court ordered that if the parties could not agree on costs, the Court would fix the costs – where the parties could not agree on the amount of costs – where the primary dispute was about the assessment of professional costs – where the Respondent provided no evidence to support its assertion about the correct method of calculation – where the Court fixed costs substantially in the amount proposed by the Applicant

This was an Application to fix costs by the successful Costs Applicant. The Costs Applicant’s Solicitor submitted an Affidavit in support of the Application to fix costs in the Amount of $20,093.13. The Calculation of the amount claimed for fixed costs included $16,731.07 (57.5%) of professional fees, $3,346.21 (20%) for Care and Consideration and $15.85 for disbursements which was not disputed. With Care and Consideration total professional fees claimed at Scale was 70% (estimated) of Solicitor and Own Client Costs. The Costs applicant referred to the “Rule of Thumb” (no evidence cited) ratio of standard costs (Supreme Court Scale) as being between 66% to 75% of Solicitor and Own Client Costs.

President Kingham considered that the claim for Care and Consideration was at the lower end of Item A of Practice Direction 22 of 2018 at 15% as the matter was disposed "after a few directions hearings and exchanges between the parties about the merits of the objection" [11] An order for fixed costs at 67% (estimated) of professional fees claimed including care and consideration of 15% was made.

However, on an Application to fix costs it might be more prudent to exhibit an independent short form (Detailed Summary) Assessment of costs rather than rely on the Solicitors evidence. Following this Judgment a trial or contested hearing would more likely than not incur the maximum for care and consideration pursuant to the relevant item number for in the Practice Direction.