Conder v Silkbard [1999] NSWCA 459

New South Wales Court of Appeal CITATION : Conder v Silkbard [1999] NSWCA 459 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40344/98 HEARING DATE(S) : 04/11/99 JUDGMENT DATE : 10 December 1999

PARTIES : Michael James CONDER & Ors Silkbard Pty Limited JUDGMENT OF : Meagher JA at 1; Beazley JA at 2; Fitzgerald JA at 40

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 12013/95 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Bruce J

COUNSEL : Appellant: M Orlov Respondent: J C Campbell QC/ S W Climpson SOLICITORS : Appellant: Messrs Gray & Perkins Respondent: Anne Finerty CATCHWORDS : Legal Profession Act; Claim of costs; delivery of a Bill of Costs prior to recovery proceedings; stay of proceedings pending delivery; trial judge's discretion; adequate reasons for decision ACTS CITED : Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Limited (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 CASES CITED: Dodd v Gillis (1989) 16 NSWLR 623 Zizza v Seymour [1976] 2 NSWLR 135 Udovenko v Mitchell (1997) 160 ALR 161 DECISION : Appeal allowed

THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COURT OF APPEAL

CA 40344/98 CL 12013/95

MEAGHER JA BEAZLEY JA FITZGERALD JA

Friday, 10 December 1999

CONDER v SILKBARD

FACTS

The appellants, a firm of solicitors commenced proceedings in the Local Court against the respondent, a former client, claiming costs for work performed for the respondent in 1990 and 1991 (the 1990/91 accounts). The respondent defended the proceedings on the basis that the appellants had not given it a bill of costs at least thirty days prior to the commencement of the recovery proceedings as required by the Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) (LPA). It also challenged the reasonableness of the charges.