The Court refused to set aside two costs agreements under s 288 of the Legal Profession Act 2006 (ACT), finding the second agreement was fair and reasonable where the initial estimate reflected the limited scope of work originally requested and the firm provided regular invoicing and periodic estimates for substantial additional work. The plaintiff's claim regarding the first agreement was held to be statute-barred; although the plaintiff suffered from a diagnosed mental illness throughout the limitation period, her demonstrated capacity to actively manage her litigation — including providing instructions, negotiating settlement terms, and engaging independent financial advice — was inconsistent with being substantially impeded in the management of her affairs for the purposes of s 30 of the Limitation Act 1985 (ACT). The ACL claims for unconscionable conduct and unfair contract terms were also dismissed, with the Court finding no evidence of undue influence, pressure, or terms inconsistent with standard legal industry practice. Leave was granted under s 294A to apply for costs assessment of three specific invoices.
The full text is available to signed-in members.