Mr Cohen, a solicitor, has brought proceedings against Ms Fung, his former client, claiming the payment of fees and disbursements that he alleges were incurred in connection with the legal services he provided to her.
This judgment concerns an application by Ms Fung, filed on 7 March 2024 for the dismissal of Mr Cohen's proceedings against her together with costs. This judgment also concerns an application by Mr Cohen for summary judgment on the Amended Statement of Claim, which was filed on 24 April 2024.
[2]
Background
Mr Cohen acted for Ms Fung in Local Court and Family Law proceedings from March 2018 until about July 2020.
In March 2018, Mr Cohen provided Ms Fung with a "Standard Costs Disclosure" ('SCD') mistakenly dated March 2017. The SCD gave a brief description of the matters in relation to which Mr Cohen would act for Ms Fung. The SCD set out the hourly rates which were to be applied to work performed for Ms Fung.
In the section of the SCD entitled "COSTS-ESTIMATES", an estimate of costs of all of the anticipated work was not given. The following mixture of pro-forma text and added text was set out:
6. COSTS-ESTIMATE
The following ESTIMATE is based on the information available to us to date. It is an estimate, not a quotation and subject to change.
Either:
6.1. I estimate the cost of the work to be presently inestimable, as there might well be a number of steps, and negotiations can be of any length, and mediation may still be an option, notwithstanding that there are already a series of matters to which you have instructed me and which I agree require legal representation, as discussed above and for which I am honoured to take your instructions and provide advice.
I can estimate individual parts of the work I can do for you, but even that is unpredictable, as for example, if an ADVO is not feasible, then if it is, how much assistance you Will need, cannot be predicted, with any sort of accuracy. [sic]
I recommend that we discuss the cost of steps, as they arise.
Professional fees: up to NO ESTIMATE (estimate)
+GST**
Charges: $TBA mostly travel phone and paper related
Disbursements subject to GST: TBA, plus travel expenses and barrister's fees if applicable
SUBTOTAL: no estimate + GST** any disbursements
GST free Disbursements: $TBA such as court fees
TOTAL (GST inclusive exclusive): no estimate + GST**
6.2. **It is not possible at this time to provide an accurate estimate of the total costs. Instead a range of estimates is provided. There may be a number of stages in your matter, which will vary according to its complexity, but may broadly be divided into:
[there follows a description of work which it was anticipated might arise, including a property issue, in relation to which an estimate of $4,000 to $10,000 was given.]
On 21 March 2018, Mr Cohen issued invoice 18/20 in the sum of $8,360 for professional costs. Ms Fung paid this invoice on 22 March 2018.
On 29 May 2018, Ms Fung deposited the sum of $100,000 in Mr Cohen's office account, at his request. On 30 May 2018 Mr Cohen issued an invoice for $25,000 and refunded $75,000 to Ms Fung. Mr Cohen reissued the invoice on 2 August 2018.
On 1 August 2018, Mr Cohen requested that Ms Fung transfer $11,000 into his account. Ms Fung says that she did not receive an invoice for this amount, but Mr Cohen said he handed it to her on 2 August 2018.
On 2 November 2018 Mr Cohen sent to Ms Fung by email an invoice from counsel for the sum of $10,134.62, which she paid on the same day.
On 17 December 2018, Mr Cohen generated an invoice for $9,900. He requested that Ms Fung pay the amount, and she did. Ms Fung says that she did not receive the invoice.
On 28 October 2019, Mr Cohen generated an invoice for $22,000. He sent an email to Ms Fung saying that the invoice was attached. Ms Fung says that it was not attached, but, instead, her affidavit was attached. Ms Fung paid the amount of $22,000 into Mr Cohen's account on 29 October 2019.
On 21 February 2020, Mr Cohen emailed a barrister's account for the sum of $4,809.92 to Ms Fung. She paid this account on the same day.
On 23 April 2020, Mr Cohen emailed a specialist doctor's account to Ms Fung in the sum of $2,640. Ms Fung paid the account on the same day.
On 12 July 2020, Mr Cohen asked Ms Fung to pay $22,000 into his office account. She paid the amount and says that she did not receive an invoice.
About 10 months later, on 5 May 2021, Mr Cohen sent an itemised account to Ms Fung. In an email dated 10 May 2021, Ms Fung disputed the account. Mr Cohen withdrew the account.
On 18 June 2021, Ms Fung received a further itemised tax invoice by express post. On the same day, Ms Fung sent an email to Mr Cohen disputing the invoice. On 5 July 2021, Mr Cohen sent an email to Ms Fung withdrawing the invoice.
On 13 September 2021, Ms Fung received a further email from Mr Cohen enclosing a further tax invoice dated 13 September 2021. This invoice showed a "Total before discounts" of $237,702.55, a "Total after discounts" of $211,338.55 which, after the subtraction of "Monies received from you" of $115,844.54 resulted in a "Balance due" of $95,494.01.
Mr Cohen asserts that he sent a further invoice to Ms Fung on 22 December 2021 in the sum of $243,902.55, less the sum of $115,884.54 paid on the interim invoices resulting in a balance due of $128,058.01. In his Amended Statement of Claim, Mr Cohen amends the amounts claimed on this invoice by subtracting the sum of $13,007.95. In his Amended Statement of Claim, Mr Cohen also seeks to claim from Ms Fung a further sum of $11,909.62 for expenses incurred by Mr Cohen between March 2018 and October 2021 "on behalf of the defendant that he failed to charge to the defendant and failed to include in any invoice" (paragraph 3A). Mr Cohen has now withdrawn that further claim.
[3]
Relevant statutory provisions
The Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) ('the Uniform Law') provides, relevantly, as follows:
3 Objectives
The objectives of this Law are to promote the administration of justice and an efficient and effective Australian legal profession, by -
(a) providing and promoting interjurisdictional consistency in the law applying to the Australian legal profession; and
(b) ensuring lawyers are competent and maintain high ethical and professional standards in the provision of legal services; and
(c) enhancing the protection of clients of law practices and the protection of the public generally; and
(d) empowering clients of law practices to make informed choices about the services they access and the costs involved; and
(e) promoting regulation of the legal profession that is efficient, effective, targeted and proportionate; and
(f) providing a co-regulatory framework within which an appropriate level of independence of the legal profession from the executive arm of government is maintained.
172 Legal costs must be fair and reasonable
(1) A law practice must, in charging legal costs, charge costs that are no more than fair and reasonable in all the circumstances and that in particular are -
(a) proportionately and reasonably incurred; and
(b) proportionate and reasonable in amount.
(2) In considering whether legal costs satisfy subsection (1), regard must be had to whether the legal costs reasonably reflect -
(a) the level of skill, experience, specialisation and seniority of the lawyers concerned; and
(b) the level of complexity, novelty or difficulty of the issues involved, and the extent to which the matter involved a matter of public interest; and
(c) the labour and responsibility involved; and
(d) the circumstances in acting on the matter, including (for example) any or all of the following -
(i) the urgency of the matter;
(ii) the time spent on the matter;
(iii) the time when business was transacted in the matter;
(iv) the place where business was transacted in the matter;
(v) the number and importance of any documents involved; and
(e) the quality of the work done; and
(f) the retainer and the instructions (express or implied) given in the matter.
(3) In considering whether legal costs are fair and reasonable, regard must also be had to whether the legal costs conform to any applicable requirements of this Part, the Uniform Rules and any fixed costs legislative provisions.
(4) A costs agreement is prima facie evidence that legal costs disclosed in the agreement are fair and reasonable if -
(a) the provisions of Division 3 relating to costs disclosure have been complied with; and
(b) the costs agreement does not contravene, and was not entered into in contravention of, any provision of Division 4.
…
174 Disclosure obligations of law practice regarding clients
(1) Main disclosure requirement A law practice -
(a) must, when or as soon as practicable after instructions are initially given in a matter, provide the client with information disclosing the basis on which legal costs will be calculated in the matter and an estimate of the total legal costs; and
(b) must, when or as soon as practicable after there is any significant change to anything previously disclosed under this subsection, provide the client with information disclosing the change, including information about any significant change to the legal costs that will be payable by the client -
together with the information referred to in subsection (2).
(2) Additional information to be provided Information provided under -
(a) subsection (1)(a) must include information about the client's rights -
(i) to negotiate a costs agreement with the law practice; and
(ii) to negotiate the billing method (for example, by reference to timing or task); and
(iii) to receive a bill from the law practice and to request an itemised bill after receiving a bill that is not itemised or is only partially itemised; and
(iv) to seek the assistance of the designated local regulatory authority in the event of a dispute about legal costs; or
(b) subsection (1)(b) must include a sufficient and reasonable amount of information about the impact of the change on the legal costs that will be payable to allow the client to make informed decisions about the future conduct of the matter.
(3) Client's consent and understanding If a disclosure is made under subsection (1), the law practice must take all reasonable steps to satisfy itself that the client has understood and given consent to the proposed course of action for the conduct of the matter and the proposed costs.
(4) Exception for legal costs below lower threshold A disclosure is not required to be made under subsection (1) if the total legal costs in the matter (excluding GST and disbursements) are not likely to exceed the amount specified in the Uniform Rules for the purposes of this subsection (the lower threshold), but the law practice may nevertheless choose to provide the client with the uniform standard disclosure form referred to in subsection (5).
(5) Alternative disclosure for legal costs below higher threshold If the total legal costs in a matter (excluding GST and disbursements) are not likely to exceed the amount specified in the Uniform Rules for the purposes of this subsection (the higher threshold), the law practice may, instead of making a disclosure under subsection (1), make a disclosure under this subsection by providing the client with the uniform standard disclosure form prescribed by the Uniform Rules for the purposes of this subsection.
(5A) To avoid doubt, the uniform standard disclosure form prescribed by the Uniform Rules for the purposes of subsection (5) may require the disclosure of GST or disbursements or both.
(6) Disclosure to be written A disclosure under this section must be made in writing, but the requirement for writing does not affect the law practice's obligations under subsection (3).
(7) Change in amount of total costs - where previously below lower threshold If the law practice has not made a disclosure, whether under subsection (1) or (5), because the total legal costs in the matter are not likely to exceed the lower threshold, the law practice must, when or as soon as practicable after the law practice becomes aware (or ought reasonably become aware) that the total legal costs (excluding GST and disbursements) are likely to exceed the lower threshold -
(a) inform the client in writing of that expectation; and
(b) make the disclosure required by subsection (1) or (if applicable) subsection (5).
(8) Change in amount of total costs - where previously below higher threshold If the law practice has not made a disclosure under subsection (1) but has made a disclosure under subsection (5) because the total legal costs in the matter are not likely to exceed the higher threshold, the law practice must, when or as soon as practicable after the law practice becomes aware (or ought reasonably become aware) that the total legal costs (excluding GST and disbursements) are likely to exceed the higher threshold -
(a) inform the client in writing of that expectation; and
(b) make the disclosure required by subsection (1).
(9) (Repealed)
…
178 Non-compliance with disclosure obligations
(1) If a law practice contravenes the disclosure obligations of this Part -
(a) the costs agreement concerned (if any) is void; and
(b) the client or an associated third party payer is not required to pay the legal costs until they have been assessed or any costs dispute has been determined by the designated local regulatory authority; and
(c) the law practice must not commence or maintain proceedings for the recovery of any or all of the legal costs until they have been assessed or any costs dispute has been determined by the designated local regulatory authority or under jurisdictional legislation; and
(d) the contravention is capable of constituting unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct on the part of any principal of the law practice or any legal practitioner associate or foreign lawyer associate involved in the contravention.
(2) In a matter involving both a client and an associated third party payer where disclosure has been made to one of them but not the other, this section -
(a) does not affect the liability of the one to whom disclosure was made to pay the legal costs; and
(b) does not prevent proceedings being maintained against the one to whom the disclosure was made for the recovery of those legal costs.
(3) The Uniform Rules may provide that subsections (1) and (2) -
(a) do not apply; or
(b) apply with specified modifications -
in specified circumstances or kinds of circumstances.
When interpreting the provisions of the Uniform Law, I bear in mind that those provisions serve the objectives of the Uniform Law set out in s 3. In relation to this matter, s 3(b), (c) and (d) of the Uniform Law are directly relevant to the imposition upon law practices of disclosure obligations under s 174 of the Uniform Law.
[4]
The parties' contentions
It was argued by Ms Fung that Mr Cohen was in contravention of his disclosure obligations under s 174 of the Uniform Law in two respects:
1. Mr Cohen failed to give her an estimate of the total legal costs in writing as required by s 174(1)(a) and s 174(6) of the Uniform Law.
2. Mr Cohen and his legal practice failed to take all reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that she had understood and given consent to the proposed costs as required under s 174(3) of the Uniform Law.
Ms Fung said that she did not receive an estimate of the total legal costs under s 174(1)(a), either in writing, as required by s 174(6) of the Uniform Law, or orally. In her affidavit of 28 May 2024, at paragraph 5, Ms Fung said:
The only conversations I had with the Plaintiff that involved the issue of costs would be on dates that I do not recall, asking him for an estimate of costs. The response was that it will be less than the costs my ex partner is paying their lawyers.
A failure to comply with s 174(1)(a) is clearly a failure to comply with a disclosure obligation.
In Malvina Park Pty Ltd v Johnson [2019] NSWSC 1490 (Malvina Park), Walton J considered the question of whether the obligation set out in s 174(3) is a disclosure obligation for the purpose of s 178 of the Uniform Law. At [76]-[79], Walton J said:
76. It is true that the heading to s 174(3) is "Client's consent and undertaking" but the opening words of that subsection create, in my view, a connection between the main disclosure required in s 174(1) and that the requirement reflected in the heading of s 174(3) suggestive of statutory intention that a "disclosure obligation", as referred to in the heading of s 174, requires not only the provision of disclosure by way of designated information but a requirement to impart that information so as to ensure, as subsection states, the client understands and consents.
77. This construction is consistent with the objects of Pt 4.3 as reflected in s 169(a), namely, to "ensure that clients of law practices are able to make informed choices about their legal options and costs associated with pursuing those options" (emphasis added). I accept the submission of the defendant that an "informed choice" connotes understanding and consequently informed consent. This conclusion is reinforced by the terms of s 174(3) itself. The obligation imposed by the provision is that the law practice takes all reasonable steps to satisfy itself that the client has understood and given consent to both "the proposed course of action for the conduct of the matter" and "the proposed costs".
78. As the defendant contended, that state of understanding, so far as it requires an understanding of a proposed course of action for the conduct of the matter (in contrast to the mere conveyance of proposed costs) is consistent with a conclusion that the legislature intended the disclosure obligation to extend beyond the provision of the information provided in s 174(1) and (2). I accept that, in the circumstances, the legislature's intention was that the law practice's reasonable steps to satisfy itself of the client's understanding and consent is a precondition to the validity of a cost agreement such that the agreement would, pursuant to s 178, be rendered void by a failure to meet that obligation.
79. In any event, attendance upon the obligation in s 174(3), as described in the preceding paragraph must be an obligation for the law practice to engage with the client to discuss the proposed course of action and the proposed cost agreement consistently with the meaning of disclosure so far as it concerns communicating information.
Following the decision in Malvina Park, a failure to comply with s 174(3) of the Uniform Law is a contravention of the practitioner's "disclosure obligations" under Part 4.3 of the Uniform Law for the purposes of s 178 of the Uniform Law.
Ms Fung argued that, because of each of the contraventions by Mr Cohen of his disclosure obligations, the costs agreement between them is void under s 178(1)(a). Further, s 178(1)(b) applies, so that Ms Fung was "not required to pay the legal costs until they have been assessed, or any costs dispute has been determined by the designated local regulatory authority". The local regulatory authority with respect to s 178 of the Uniform Law is the NSW Legal Services Commissioner, pursuant to the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 s 11 Table 1.
Mr Cohen, in his affidavit of 3 April 2024, said that he had a conversation on the telephone with Ms Fung on 23 July 2020, part of which was "words to the effect":
My outstanding fees will be big, but not as big as they should be. Given how much it's likely to be, I'd like you to have all the detail before you before you pay me the rest, for both of us to see all the detail of all the work I've done for you, so that you can ask me about anything and you will know exactly what I have charged you for but just as importantly also what I did not charge you for, which will give us both peace of mind
She said: Tell me again, how much is big?
I said: Okay but I didn't want to upset you any more and don't want you to be too distracted from changing your mind and accepting the offer. So, depending on whether or not we settle, or go to arbitration with Mr Giles, with Mr Hodgson's fees for his help this year which I haven't received yet, and with Mr Coleman waiving his fees, technically you might well owe us well over six figures, that is, $100,000 already in addition to what you have already paid, but almost certainly it will be more if we go to the arbitration, it will exceed that by quite a lot more, perhaps $120,000, than it would if you settled. I have already told you how expensive that is going to be but I don't know exactly right now and I will prepare an itemised account, because when that happens, which it will, with the arbitration virtually certain to finish this case off, I will assuredly give you the discount for prompt payment, sufficiently large, to make you very happy. For prompt payment I shall discount the outstanding costs down to below $100,000 for sure, if we didn't have to go to arbitration and you settled.
Ms Fung denied having a conversation with Mr Cohen in these terms.
Even if the conversation Mr Cohen relates did take place, his words plainly did not constitute an estimate of the total legal costs, as required under s 174(1)(a). In addition, s 174(6) requires the disclosure to be made in writing.
Mr Cohen did not comply with s 174(1)(a) of the Uniform Law.
It was argued in Mr Cohen's case that he was unaware of his failure to comply with s 174(1)(a) of the Uniform Law until he received the written submissions in the defendant's case on 3 June 2024. I reject this argument. The disclosure obligation was referred to in paragraph 12 of the Defence filed on 28 May 2024. In any event, Mr Cohen should not have to be made aware of his obligations under the Uniform Law.
As Mr Cohen did not make a disclosure under s 174(1)(a) of the Uniform Law, it is not necessary to consider s 174(3). It is clear, though, that Ms Fung did not understand or consent to the course taken by Mr Cohen with respect to costs.
The Legal Profession Uniform General Rules 2015 ('the Rules') provide, in rule 72A:
72A Non-compliance with disclosure obligations - disapplication of section 178(1) and (2) of the Uniform Law
(1) This rule applies where a law practice has contravened the disclosure obligations of Part 4.3 of the Uniform Law in relation to a particular matter.
(2) Section 178(1) and (2) of the Uniform Law do not apply in relation to the law practice (so far as they would otherwise apply to the matter concerned) in circumstances where the relevant authority, a costs assessor, a court or a tribunal is satisfied that -
(a) the law practice took reasonable steps to comply with the disclosure obligations of Part 4.3 of the Uniform Law before becoming aware of the contravention, and
(b) the law practice, no later than 14 days after the date on which it became aware of the contravention, rectified the contravention, as far as practicable, by providing the client with the necessary information required to be disclosed under Division 3 of Part 4.3 of the Uniform Law (including, where relevant, an estimate or revised estimate of the costs), and
(c) the contravention was not substantial and it would not be reasonable to expect that the client would have made a different decision in any relevant respect.
(3) Subrule (2)(b) applies even though the information or estimate is not provided at the times required by the disclosure obligations of Part 4.3 of the Uniform Law.
(4) In this rule -
client includes (where relevant) an associated third party payer.
relevant authority means the designated local regulatory authority for section 178 of the Uniform Law.
It was argued by Mr Cohen that rule 72A should apply. It was argued that Mr Cohen had no obligation to have the costs assessed, and that Ms Fung should have sought to have them assessed if she was unhappy with them. Mr Cohen relied on his disclosure to Ms Fung of his hourly rate. It was argued that the Court should be satisfied that Mr Cohen took "reasonable steps to comply with the disclosure obligations of Part 4.3 of the Uniform Law before becoming aware of the contravention".
I reject Mr Cohen's argument. Even if his evidence is accepted entirely, it falls a long way short of constituting the provision of "an estimate of the total legal costs" required by s 174(1)(a) of the Uniform Law. In addition, I could not find, on the material before me, that "the contravention was not substantial" within the meaning of s 72A(2)(c) of the Rules.
Ms Castle, counsel for Ms Fung, relied on the following passage from Malvina Park at [85]:
85. I accept the submission of the defendant that r 72A is intended to cover circumstances in which there has been an inadvertent contravention of the disclosure obligations which is rectified and the contravention was not material to the client's decision.
It was submitted in Mr Cohen's case that the matters in relation to which he acted for Ms Fung were too complex and their future too uncertain to give an estimate of total costs as soon as practicable after instructions are given. I do not consider that this observation assists Mr Cohen. I note that s 174 of the Uniform Law contemplates that further estimates may be given as a matter progresses.
[5]
Conclusion
Mr Cohen did not comply with the disclosure obligation imposed by s 174(1)(a) of the Uniform Law at any time whilst acting for Ms Fung. He cannot establish the presence of the factors listed in rule 72A of the Rules, so rule 72A does not assist him.
As a consequence, under s 178(1)(a) and (b) of the Uniform Law, the costs agreement between Mr Cohen and Ms Fung is void and Ms Fung is not required to pay the legal costs until they have been assessed or a costs dispute has been determined by the NSW Legal Services Commissioner.
As Ms Fung presently has no liability to pay Mr Cohen's legal costs, the Plaintiff's action must fail, so that to continue to prosecute it would be an abuse of process. The proceedings will be dismissed.
It is therefore unnecessary to consider Mr Cohen's application for summary judgment, which cannot succeed.
Mr Cohen was concerned that he could not seek an assessment of the costs under s 198 of the Uniform Law because s 198(3) provides that an application for an assessment of costs must be made within 12 months after the request for payment was made to the client. The Uniform Law provides, in s 198(4):
(4) However, an application that is made out of time may be dealt with by the costs assessor if the designated tribunal, on application by the costs assessor or the client or third party payer who made the application for assessment, determines, after having regard to the delay and the reasons for the delay, that it is just and fair for the application for assessment to be dealt with after the 12-month period.
Ms Cohen, counsel for Mr Cohen, noted that a law practice was not mentioned in s 198(4) of the Uniform Law as an entity which could apply out of time for a costs assessment. She submitted that the dismissal of these proceedings would be unfair as Mr Cohen had no ability to seek an assessment of costs.
Ms Castle helpfully referred us to the decision of Elkaim AJ in Dive Lawyers Pty Ltd t/as Dive Lawyers & Notaries v The Manager, Costs Assessment [2024] NSWSC 721, in which His Honour said, at [22]-[25]:
22. I think the answer lies in the terms of reg 34. The regulation is headed "Procedure before application for assessment of bill referred to assessor-Uniform Law Costs". Regulation 34(2) states:
On receipt of an application for assessment of a bill of costs for Uniform Law costs by the law practice giving the bill, the Manager, Costs Assessment is to deal with the application as follows:
(a) A copy of the application is to be given by the Manager, Costs Assessment to the person who was given the bill of costs and is to be accompanied by a notice advising the person that any objection to the application must be lodged with the Manager, Costs Assessment in writing within 21 days after the person receives the notice.
(b) A copy of any objection duly lodged with the Manager, Costs Assessment is to be sent by the Manager, Costs Assessment to the applicant with a notice advising the applicant that any response to the objection must be lodged with the Manager, Costs Assessment in writing within 21 days after the applicant receives the notice.
(c) A copy of any response duly lodged with the Manager, Costs Assessment is to be sent by the Manager, Costs Assessment to the person who lodged the objection.
(d) The application is to be referred by the Manager, Costs Assessment to a costs assessor for assessment:
(i) if no objection is duly lodged with the Manager, Costs Assessment - as soon as practicable after the period referred to in paragraph (a), or
(ii) if an objection is duly lodged - as soon as practicable after a response is duly lodged with the Manager, Costs Assessment or, if no response is duly lodged, as soon as practicable after the period referred to in paragraph (b).
(e) Any relevant objection or response, and any objection or response that is lodged out of time, is to be sent by the Manager, Costs Assessment to the costs assessor to whom the application for assessment is referred.
23. Pursuant to reg 34, after the initial dealings with the application, as set out in sub regs (2)(a), (b) and (c), the application is then sent to a costs assessor. Having received the application the costs assessor, no doubt being aware of the time limitation in s 198(3), would not be able to continue the assessment but would be able, under s 198(4) to refer the matter to the first defendant for a determination of whether time could be extended.
24. It would be no answer to this procedure to say that an application could not be filed as it was out of time, because s 198 clearly contemplates the first defendant dealing with an application which has been filed by a client or third-party payer who has also made an application regarding a determination concerning a late filing.
25. I am accordingly of the view that the procedure dictated by reg 34 requires the acceptance for filing of an out of time application for assessment which is then to be referred to a costs assessor who, when noting that the application is out of time, will refer it (or apply to) the first defendant to determine whether or not "it is just and fair for the application for assessment to be dealt with after the 12-month period."
Mr Cohen may, therefore, seek a costs assessment, and it is a matter for the Manager, Costs Assessment (who is the designated authority for s 198(4) of the Uniform Law under the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014, s 11 Table 2), as to whether the application will be dealt with after the 12 month period provided for in s 198(3) of the Uniform Law has elapsed.
[6]
Order
There will be an order in the following terms:
1. These proceedings are dismissed.
[7]
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 26 June 2024