[2] Ruling under s 3.44A, relevant to but not determinative in this proceeding.

[3] AsJ Woods 's view was that it was terminated by Mr Brott. Mr Brott says that the law practice terminated it.

[4] Under s 3.4.38 of the 2004 Act, in Division 7 of Part 3.4.

[5] Sections 3.4.44A(1)(d) and (e) were not relevant.

[6] At the hearing it was confirmed that this would not include the reasonableness of the costs charged and whether the law practice failed to take necessary steps, which were conceded to be matters for the Costs Court on a review and assessment of the costs.

[8] 'Alternatively, disclosed an interest rate that was unlawful in that it exceeded the maximum rate prescribed by s 3.4.21' [Points of Claim at 4(m)]. I note here however that s 3.4.21 is not a requirement under Division 3.

[9] Points of Claim 4(x) alleges that: 'In breach of s 3.4.10, no disclosure at all was provided of Counsel's rates or estimate of total legal costs save for the assurance in the covering letter that Senior Counsel had agreed to act on a 'fee declined' basis. The Applicant was subsequently invoiced $8,400 in Counsel's fees.'

[10] Contained in ss 3.4.9 to 3.4.18A. It was uncontentious that this is a different question to the one considered by the Costs Court, namely whether there has been material non-disclosure.

[12] Listed in his affidavit in these proceedings at [34] as 'heart attack, suffering debilitating breathlessness, stomach and joint pain and thyrotoxicosis'. The affidavit continues 'During the retainer merely sitting up gave me extreme pain. Soon after the retainer commenced, I collapsed in Singapore and had to have 4 discs replaced in my neck in complex neurological surgery [performed in Melbourne].

[13] Admitted in 1978, ceasing practice after VCAT orders in 2008 cancelling his practising certificate and prohibiting him from applying for a practising certificate until 2014. The respondent noted further orders of VCAT in 2011, and the order of the Supreme Court (Habersberger J) on 25 March 2011, by consent, that Mr Brott be struck off the roll of practitioners kept by the Supreme Court. Law Institute of Victoria v Brott [2008] VCAT 1998; Legal Services Commissioner v Brott [2008] VCAT 2399; and Legal Services Commissioner v Brott [2011] VCAT 110 ('the 2011 VCAT decision').

[14] Referred to at [35] of his affidavit in this proceeding and exhibited.

[16] Donald Edward Barclay & Ors v McMahon Clarke (A Firm) [2014] QSC 20 ('Barclay'). Cited with approval in Simons & Ors v Dowd Lawyers Pty Ltd (No 4) [2021] QCAT 134.

[18] Not fully complying with the disclosure requirements.

[19] No submission was made that it was not reasonable.

[21] My view, discussed later, is that the most relevant matters were disclosed.

[22] Which Mr Brott signed on each page.

[23] Points of Claim dated 24 April 2019 ('Points of Claim') at 5(a).

[24] Mr Schetzer was mistaken about the date of the next hearing.

[25] Affidavit 24 April 2019, [11] and [15] and in his evidence at the hearing.

[26] As recorded by Mr Schetzer is his file note of that date.

[27] 'A conditional costs agreement may relate to any matter, except a matter that involves criminal proceedings or proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 of the Commonwealth.'

[29] See the ruling to this effect by AsJ Woods at [20] with which I agree.

[30] The Points of Claim alleged in the alternative, that the respondent 'disclosed an interest rate that was unlawful in that it exceeded the maximum rate prescribed by s 3.4.21' [4(m)]. I note here however that s 3.4.21 is not a requirement under Division 3. For disclosure purposes, an interest rate was specified.

[31] As separate information, the covering letter states: 'You should also be aware that in some circumstances during the course of Court proceedings - for example, if you act unreasonably, fail to meet time limits or you do not accept reasonable offers of settlement - you may be ordered to pay the other party's costs (called party-party costs) in addition to your own lawyer's costs'.