{"id":"tas:sr-2000-019","name":"Rules of the Supreme Court (Practitioners' Fees) 2000","slug":"rules-of-the-supreme-court-practitioners-fees-2000","collection":"regulation","jurisdiction":"tas","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":"19 of 2000","makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":318825,"registerId":"tas-tas:sr-2000-019-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-08","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Short title","content":"### 1 Short title\n\n> These Rules of Court may be cited as the [Rules of the Supreme Court (Practitioners' Fees) 2000](/view/html/inforce/2026-04-12/sr-9999-999) .","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"2","sectionType":"section","heading":"Commencement","content":"### 2 Commencement\n\n> These Rules of Court take effect on the day on which their making is notified in the *Gazette*.","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"3","sectionType":"section","heading":"Principal Rules","content":"### 3 Principal Rules\n\n> In these Rules, the [Rules of the Supreme Court 1965](/view/html/inforce/2026-04-12/sr-1976-078) are referred to as the Principal Rules.","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"4.","sectionType":"section","heading":null,"content":"### 4.\n\n> The amendment effected by this rule has been incorporated into the authorised version of the [Rules of the Supreme Court 1965](/view/html/inforce/2026-04-12/sr-1976-078) .\n\nw. j. e. cox\n\nChief Justice\n\nP. G. Underwood\n\nPuisne Judge\n\ne. c. crawford\n\nPuisne Judge\n\np. e. evans\n\nPuisne Judge\n\nCountersigned,\n\ni. g. ritchard\n\nRegistrar\n\nDisplayed and numbered in accordance with the *[Rules Publication Act 1953](/view/html/inforce/current/act-1953-050)*.\n\nNotified in the *Gazette* on 12 April 2000\n\nThese Rules of Court are administered in the Department of Justice and Industrial Relations.","sortOrder":3}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The instrument operates as an amendment to the Principal Rules and has been incorporated into the authorised consolidated Rules (s3; rule 4). The text here does not itself expand or narrow scope beyond making that amendment; determining any substantive scope change requires comparing the authorised consolidated Rules with the prior version."},"complexity_factors":["Instrument contains no substantive fee schedules or rate formulas; substantive detail must be sought in the Principal Rules or the authorised consolidated version (s3; rule 4).","Cross-reference to an external consolidated instrument (Rules of the Supreme Court 1965) increases lookup complexity for users (s3).","Commencement is conditional on Gazette notification, creating timing uncertainty for when changes become effective (s2).","Note that the amendment has been incorporated into the authorised version, which can obscure amendment history and requires checking the authorised text for current effect (rule 4).","Administrative responsibility and publication details are stated but do not explain enforcement or compliance procedures (administration note).","Formal signatures and publication under the Rules Publication Act signal procedural formalities rather than substantive regulatory mechanisms."],"plain_english_summary":"This instrument amends the Supreme Court’s rules on practitioners’ fees and points users to the existing Rules of the Supreme Court 1965 as the governing text (title; s3). It takes effect when its making is notified in the Gazette (s2) and the amendment has been incorporated into the authorised version of the Principal Rules (rule 4). The instrument is administered by the Department of Justice and Industrial Relations (administration note)."},"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[],"contradictions":[]},"summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"Based on the available information, the regulation appears to have remained focused on its original purpose of regulating practitioners' fees in the Tasmanian Supreme Court since its commencement in April 2000. Amendments noted in the table of amending instruments likely reflect periodic fee updates rather than any expansion or contraction of scope."},"complexity_factors":["The substantive content (actual fee schedules) is not visible in the provided text, making full analysis impossible","Fee schedules in court rules can involve multiple categories of legal work with different rates, adding moderate complexity","The regulation has been amended multiple times since 2000, meaning practitioners must track historical versions for older matters","Interaction with broader Supreme Court rules and costs assessment processes adds a layer of procedural complexity","Overall structure and purpose are straightforward — it is essentially a regulated pricing document"],"plain_english_summary":"The Rules of the Supreme Court (Practitioners' Fees) 2000 set a statutory schedule of fees for legal work in the Tasmanian Supreme Court, limiting what practitioners may charge (and what a losing party must reimburse when ordered to pay costs). It affects parties to Supreme Court proceedings, their lawyers, and clients by providing benchmark fees. The provided document appears to be the administrative shell; the detailed fee schedules themselves are not reproduced."},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This legislation maintains its original narrow purpose: updating practitioners' fee rules for the Supreme Court. It has not expanded beyond this technical, procedural function."},"complexity_factors":["Extremely short — only 4 rules total","No defined terms section (only one informal reference to 'Principal Rules')","No conditional logic or nested exceptions","Single cross-reference to the Rules of the Supreme Court 1965","Rule 4 explicitly states the substantive content has been incorporated elsewhere, making this a procedural/formal instrument only"],"plain_english_summary":"This is a short, technical piece of legislation that updates the rules about how much lawyers can charge for their work in Tasmania's Supreme Court.\n\n**What it does:**\n- **Updates the fee rules**: It amends the main Supreme Court Rules from 1965 (called the \"Principal Rules\") to change how practitioners' (lawyers') fees are calculated and regulated.\n- **Note**: The actual changes to fees aren't shown in this document — they've already been merged into the main 1965 Rules (see Rule 4).\n\n**Who it affects:**\n- Lawyers (barristers and solicitors) practising in the Tasmanian Supreme Court\n- Clients who pay legal fees for Supreme Court matters\n- The courts when assessing what fees are reasonable\n\n**Why it matters:**\nLegal fees in court cases need to be predictable and fair. These rules set the framework for what lawyers can charge, which helps clients understand costs and helps courts decide fee disputes. This 2000 update ensures the fee structure stays current with legal practice.\n\n**Key point**: This document is essentially a \"delivery mechanism\" — it formally makes changes that are actually contained in the older, main set of court rules."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/rules-of-the-supreme-court-practitioners-fees-2000","history":"/api/acts/rules-of-the-supreme-court-practitioners-fees-2000/history","analysis":"/api/acts/rules-of-the-supreme-court-practitioners-fees-2000/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/rules-of-the-supreme-court-practitioners-fees-2000/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/rules-of-the-supreme-court-practitioners-fees-2000/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/rules-of-the-supreme-court-practitioners-fees-2000/documents"}}