Law Institute of Victoria v PJR [2006] VCAT 293 (see the associated pecuniary loss dispute decision here)

The Law Institute prosecuted a solicitor for misconduct constituted by simply missing a time limit. That failed, as did most of the other charges. But he was convicted of unsatisfactory conduct in not telling his client for two years [...]

[Read more →]

Cowen's case [2006] VCAT 231
A solicitor felt sorry for an unrepresented criminal defendant and rendered a paltry bill. When he copped a costs complaint, he purported to revise his bill to include all the things he had omitted to bill the first time. Mr Butcher said — no way.

[Read more →]

Law Institute of Victoria v MMM [2006] VCAT 182
Section 149(3) of the Legal Practice Act, 1996 says that a demand by the Law Institute under the power to compel information and documents must be in writing and "must allow at least 14 days to comply". In a marvellously ambitious move, Rod Randall unsuccessfully challenged the [...]

[Read more →]

Buxey's Case [2006] VCAT 173
The decision is a simple illustration of three things:

a tribunal is not functus officio in relation to costs upon deciding a dispute;
a client can only have an order for costs if the Legal Practitioner behaved unreasonably in relation to the hearing, whereas the Legal Practitioner can have costs for unreasonableness in [...]

[Read more →]

A's Case [2006] VCAT 111
It is a well established but frequently unknown proposition that by virtue of the inconsistency of the federal scheme for the disputation of the costs of family law litigation proceedings provided for by the Family Law Rules 2004 and the costs disputes procedure under the Legal Practice Act, 1996, the latter [...]

[Read more →]

Zunica's Case [2006] VCAT 110
A barrister succeeded on an immunity defence and sought costs upon receiving the reasons. The applicant sought recognition of the fact that a costs dispute survived the immunity decision. Mr Butcher said [7]:
"The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear and determine a dispute is based upon the dispute as [...]

[Read more →]

Hulme's Case [2006] VCAT 109
The applicant's case was dismissed for want of prosecution, or to use the language of the old Legal Profession Tribunal, was found to be abandoned. There was no counsel assisting the Tribunal; the parties appeared in person. Mr Howell noted that the Legal Profession Tribunal's procedure in relation to want [...]

[Read more →]

Mathiasz's Case [2006] VCAT 416
Mr Howell said a solicitor might be immune in respect of pre-proceedings conduct, but not in this case, the facts of which did not satisfy the intimately connected test.

[Read more →]

Buttigieg's Case [2005] VCAT 2916
The costs agreement in a Workcover matter said "we will only charge you if you are successful" and that was defined to mean "lump sum compensation, … weekly payments of compensation including an increase in the rate, …, payment of medical and like expenses". But it said "We shall [...]

[Read more →]

McVeigh's Case [2005] VCAT 2917
McVeigh was the trustee in bankruptcy of the solicitor's former client. The solicitor said he had no standing because only a client, defined for the purposes of s. 103 to mean "a person who retains a legal practitioner or firm to provide legal services for fee or reward", can bring [...]

[Read more →]