It is sometimes said that once the time for taxation has expired, a bill for legal fees may be ‘sued on as a debt’. Quite frankly, I have never quite understood what the difference between a debt claim and a damages claim is, or why it matters in general, though there are certain consequences I’m aware of in terms of the civil procedures applicable. By way of first instalment: I just saw this little passage in Copuss Pty Limited v Nix  NSWSC 671, and thought to squirrel it away on the blog:
’56 There is no reason why Copuss should not be entitled to recover the loans it made to Mr and Mrs Nix. The recovery of those loans do not depend on the contract and whether Mr and Mrs Nix were in breach of it. As the High Court explained in Young v Queensland Trustees Ltd (1956) 99 CLR 560 at 567:
The common law does not and never did conceive of indebtedness in a sum certain for an executed consideration as a mere breach of contract: it is rather the detention of a sum of money and that was so whether the creditor enforced his demand by an action of debt or by indebitatus assumpsit.
And later it said (at 569):
A debt recoverable under an indebitatus count was not and is not now conceived of simply as a cause of action for breach of duty or obligation. In other words it is a mistake to regard the liability to pay a debt of a kind formerly recoverable in debt or indebitatus assumpsit as no more than the result of a breach of contract, a breach which the creditor must affirmatively allege and prove.’
- Misuse of statutory demand yields costs against solicitor personally
- Can you be prosecuted for mere negligence?
- Must a creditor obey debtor’s direction as to which of several debts a payment is to be put towards?
- Lessons from a tome in the dome on the assignment of suits’ fruits
- Appeal succeeds in Lawcover indemnity dispute with entrepeneurial solicitor