Friskin v Bitar Pty Ltd (No 2)

[2026] NSWSC 310

Supreme Court of NSW

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. COSTS — Costs assessment — appeal from determinations made by Review Panel — where court referred claim to a costs assessment pursuant to Pt 4.3 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014 (NSW) — whether s 172(4) required compliance with disclosure obligations — whether Review Panel made an error in voiding the costs agreement between the law firm and the receiver due to failure to comply with disclosure obligations and then assessing costs on a quantum meruit basis

Quick Take

The Court held that where a client is a court-appointed receiver exempt from costs disclosure obligations under s 170(2)(ii) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law, the condition in s 172(4)(a) requiring compliance with Division 3 disclosure provisions is simply inapplicable, and the costs agreement therefore operates as prima facie evidence that the disclosed costs are fair and reasonable. The Court further held that a law practice's use of a standard-form costs agreement containing disclosure terms does not constitute waiver of the client's statutory exemption from disclosure requirements, as waiver requires a clear and unequivocal act with knowledge of the relevant facts. Rather than remitting the matter to the Review Panel, the Court exercised its power under s 75A(10) of the Supreme Court Act to substitute a broad-brush assessment of $475,000 (against a claim of $549,536.90 and a Review Panel assessment of $364,266.76), having regard to proportionality and the need for finality.