The invoice delivered after settlement was determined to be a final bill for assessment under s335 of the Legal Profession Act 2007

Broadley v Broadbeach Law Group Pty Ltd [2023] QDC 236

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – REMUNERATION – where the applicant engaged the respondent solicitors in relation to a family provision application – where the applicant settled the claim and the settlement deed required further work to be carried out – where the respondent performed work to carry out steps required under the settlement agreement – where three invoices were rendered under the costs agreement between the applicant and the respondent prior to the settlement of the family provision application – where a fourth invoice was rendered a year later in relation to the costs of carrying out the settlement agreement – whether the first three invoices were interim bills within the meaning of s 333 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld)

Introduction

The Applicant applied for an assessment of four invoices rendered on the Respondent by the Applicant under s335(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (LPA) concerning a Family Provision Application. There was no argument that the first 3 invoices rendered on the Applicant by the Respondent were more than twelve months before the filing of the Application pursuant s335(5); however, the Applicant argued that the invoices were interim invoices under s333 of the LPA and thus can be assessed. The Respondent argued in response to the Applicant’s arguments that only the last invoice can be assessed under 335(5) as it was the only invoice delivered within the 12 months before the filing of the Application.  

Consideration

Consideration

His Honour referred to Turner v Mitchells Solicitors [2011] QDC 61, Tabtill No 2 Pty Ltd v DLA Phillips Fox (a firm) [2012] QSC 115, Tabtill No 2 Pty Ltd v DLA Phillips Fox (a firm) [2012] QSC 115, Challen v Golder Associates Pty Ltd [2012] QCA 307 and Mishra v Bennett & Philp Pty Ltd (2021) 8 QR 306 when considering what is a final bill about s333. In each matter, consideration was made concerning when there was a natural break of the proceedings including the end of the litigation and the length of time between when work was undertaken on the matter.

Application

His Honour held that the retainer in the Costs Agreement was “to advise on and act in the FPA to the end of trial or settlement in mediation, with an extension available on further instruction to act in an appeal or to give effect to a settlement”. [69] His Honour also noted two extensions where His Honour held that the probate proceedings were incidental to the Family Provision Application [71]

Conclusion

His Honour rejected the Respondent’s arguments that there was a natural break in the matter following mediation (notwithstanding work was being undertaken) [81] as:  

1.      It was held that it is not in the interest of Public Policy to require the client to determine the

reasonableness of part of the work undertaken without knowing the amount of the final bill; [84] and

2.      Tabtill and Mishra was distinguished where there were breaks of 11 and 5 months and after trials; [85]

and that the Costs Agreement contemplated the matter proceeding to trial or that a settlement be

reached [86]. (The matter concluded with settlement).  

It was not clear what orders were sought by the Applicant [87]. However, it can be inferred that it was ordered that all the invoices rendered by the Applicant by the Respondent were ordered to be assessed.