Le v Brydens Lawyers Pty Limited [2017] NSWSC 180

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Le v Brydens Lawyers Pty Limited [2017] NSWSC 180 Hearing dates: 16 February 2017 Date of orders: 06 March 2017 Decision date: 06 March 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Schmidt J Decision: (1) Under s 728(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) that the defendant gives the plaintiff a bill of costs in itemised form in respect of the legal services provided to the plaintiff within 42 days of the date of this order; (2) Under s 350(5) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW), that it is just and fair for the plaintiff's application for assessment filed on 15 July 2015 (NSWSC matter number 2016/199623) be dealt with by a costs assessor, notwithstanding the expiration of a 12 month period; and (3) The defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of these proceedings, unless the parties approach to be heard within 14 days. Catchwords: COSTS – request for an itemised bill of costs – provision of itemised bill ordered – construction of section 332A of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) – whether time limit imposed to request an itemised bill – no time limit – leave to pursue a costs assessment out of time – leave granted – application of the transitional provisions of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) – orders sought made – costs Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) Legal Profession Regulation 1994 Legal Profession Regulation 2005 Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) Cases Cited: Bermingham v Corrective Services Commission of New South Wales (1988) 15 NSWLR 292 Brown v Firth [2013] NSWSC 677 Bull v Attorney-General (NSW) (1913) 17 CLR 370; [1913] HCA 60 Council of the Law Society of NSW v Pizzinga [2012] NSWADT 211 Dale v Firth [2012] NSWSC 1 Firth v Yang [2014] NSWCA 92 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8 Koon Wing Lau v Calwell (1949) 80 CLR 533; [1949] HCA 65 Legal Services Commissioner v King [2013] QCAT 260 Mackowiak v Hagipantelis; Bickhoff v Hagipantelis [2015] NSWSC 1087 Parker v Comptroller-General of Customs (2009) 83 ALJR 494; [2009] HCA 7 Parramatta City Council v Brickworks Ltd (1972) 128 CLR 1; [1972] HCA 21 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28 Public Transport Commission (NSW) v J Murray-More (NSW) Pty Ltd (1975) 132 CLR 336 R v Young (1999) 46 NSWLR 681; [1999] NSWCCA 166 RHG Mortgage Limited v Rosario Ianni [2015] NSWCA 56 State of New South Wales v Avery (2016) 92 NSWLR 141; [2016] NSWCA 147 Thompson v Goold & Co [1910] AC 409 Zizza v Seymour [1976] 2 NSWLR 135 Texts Cited: Pearce and Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia, (8th ed, 2014, Lexis Nexis) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Tan Thanh Le (Plaintiff) Brydens Lawyers Pty Limited ACN 160 267 818 trading as Brydens Compensation Lawyers (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr P Menzies QC with Mr W Ward (Plaintiff) Mr R Sheldon SC (Defendant)