Branson v Tucker [2012] NSWCA 310

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Branson v Tucker [2012] NSWCA 310 Hearing dates: 17 August 2012 Decision date: 26 September 2012 Before: Beazley JA at [1] Campbell JA at [2] Barrett JA at [121] Decision: 1. Grant leave to the Applicant to appeal. 2. Direct the Applicant to file a notice of appeal, in accordance with the draft contained in the White Book, within 7 days of the date of delivery of these reasons. 3. Refuse leave for the Applicant to argue that the aspects of this Court's decision in Attard v James Legal Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 311 that are identified at [92]-[94] of the reasons for judgment in the present case, are incorrectly decided. 4. Appeal dismissed. 5. Applicant to pay costs of the Respondents of the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Catchwords: COSTS - recovery of costs - by barrister - bill of costs rendered to a firm of solicitors by a barrister pursuant to a costs agreement - dispute over charges after time expired to seek assessment under the Legal Profession Act 2004 - barrister commenced action to recover charges - defence pleaded that charges were not reasonable having regard to skill of barrister and requirements of work undertaken - barrister moved the court to strike out the defence on the basis that the Legal Profession Act provided an exclusive regime for assessing the reasonableness of costs - strike out refused - the jurisdiction of the District Court to determine the reasonableness of disputed items in a bill of costs rendered by a law practice or practitioner in the course of the legal practice or practitioner suing for unpaid fees is not ousted by the statutory costs assessment regime