Connollys Lawyers Pty Ltd v Davis

[2013] QCA 231

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Professions and Trades
2. › Lawyers
3. › Costs
4. › Disclosure obligations
5. › Failure to disclose costs estimate to client with reading disability
6. › Whether disclosure made where client unable to read signed documents without comprehension
7. › Whether continuing disclosure obligation satisfied by delivery of invoices exceeding estimates
8. › Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), ss 308(1)(c), 314(2), 315, 316
1. Professions and Trades
2. › Lawyers
3. › Costs
4. › Costs agreements
5. › Recovery of costs
6. › Whether non-compliance with disclosure obligations constitutes defence to claim for costs
7. › Whether client must apply to set aside costs agreement before raising non-disclosure as defence
8. › Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), ss 316(1), 316(2), 316(3), 328
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Summary judgment
3. › Whether defendant has real prospect of successfully defending claim
4. › Whether unpleaded defences supported by affidavit evidence may be considered
5. › Whether defendant should be permitted to amend defence
6. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 292, 299

Quick Take

A law practice's failure to comply with disclosure obligations under ss 308, 314 and 315 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) constitutes a statutory defence to a claim for costs under s 316(1) and (2), and the client need not first apply to set aside the costs agreement under s 328. The continuing disclosure obligation in s 315 is arguable not satisfied merely by delivering invoices that exceed the original estimate; a fresh costs estimate or range of estimates may be required. A client with cognitive impairment affecting reading comprehension may be 'unable to read' for the purposes of s 314(2), triggering the obligation to convey information orally.