Wong v Wang [2008] VCAT 401 | Case summary

Wong v Wang [2008] VCAT 401 | Case summary | Zoe

This is an application made by Jonathan Wong trading as Jonathan Wong Lawyers against Chuan Wang also known as Charles Wang, the respondent.
The background is that the respondent had issues with the Australian Government relating to migration and consulted the applicant in order to obtain assistance in relation to those issues.
The evidence of the applicant is that a costs agreement was entered into whereby the respondent was to be charged a lump sum of $3,850.00 in relation to professional fees, that sum including GST. The evidence of the respondent is that he did not receive any such costs agreement. The agreed fact is that the respondent paid $1,100.00 to the applicant. This application seeks payment of $2,750.00 which is the balance of the $3,850.00.
The relationship between the applicant and the respondent is one of lawyer and client. It is clear that upon receiving instructions there was a lengthy conference between the applicant and the respondent and the applicant's evidence is that preceding that conference considerable time was devoted to reading law in relation to the respondent's particular situation, there having been a change in the law during the currency of the application. There is also evidence that there was a subsequent conference also of a lengthy nature.
The respondent clearly became dissatisfied with the applicant and e-mailed his withdrawal of instructions. This withdrawal of instructions was taken by the applicant as a repudiation of the costs agreement and in the agreement is a provision that if the client terminates the agreement then the balance of the lump sum is due and payable. There is no evidence of any legal work other than the advice in conference and several e-mails back and forth between the applicant and the respondent. I question the propriety of charging for research. The ability to charge professional fees rests upon professional knowledge. Legal fees are also only chargeable for professional work done. Any provision in an agreement between a lawyer and a client seeking payment other than for work done, payment of a professional fee nature is in my view unreasonable under the Legal Profession Act and unfair under the Fair Trading Act. It may also be seen to be a penalty and indeed verges on unjust enrichment. I am further strengthened in this view by an e-mail which was sent by the applicant to the respondent on 28 November 2007 which says:

Wong v Wang

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (6 paragraphs)

Wong v Wang (Legal Practice) [2008] VCAT 401 (17 March 2008)

Parties