Comments on: Costs under a void costs agreement http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2008/02/costs-under-a-void-costs-agreement/ Two lawyers on law, legislation and liberty. And other stuff. Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:20:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Legal Eagle http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2008/02/costs-under-a-void-costs-agreement/#comment-11724 Legal Eagle Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:58:41 +0000 http://legalsoapbox.wordpress.com/?p=532#comment-11724 Greg, yes, Equus used WFW's services and then terminated the agreement. It claimed it did not have to pay any further money to WFW, and about 3 years into the case, it raised the argument that the agreement was void, and therefore it did not have to pay anything. The Court found that the agreement was void, but that, in the particular circumstances, it would be unfair for Equus to rely on the voidness of the agreement to get out of paying WFW. Therefore, WFW was entitled to have its costs met according to the terms of the agreement, even though it was void. WFW 'won', and must be pleased. Greg, yes, Equus used WFW’s services and then terminated the agreement. It claimed it did not have to pay any further money to WFW, and about 3 years into the case, it raised the argument that the agreement was void, and therefore it did not have to pay anything.

The Court found that the agreement was void, but that, in the particular circumstances, it would be unfair for Equus to rely on the voidness of the agreement to get out of paying WFW. Therefore, WFW was entitled to have its costs met according to the terms of the agreement, even though it was void. WFW ‘won’, and must be pleased.

]]> By: Greg Yates http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2008/02/costs-under-a-void-costs-agreement/#comment-11725 Greg Yates Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:46:12 +0000 http://legalsoapbox.wordpress.com/?p=532#comment-11725 I have read the strange case above (WFW), but as a lay person, still cannot really fathom what happened, ie who or what 'won'. I infer it this Equs used WFW, then avoided paying, and duly defended itself by claiming the original agreement was void, so it owes WFW nothing more. But this argument was shown invalid? Hence WFW are entitled to have their costs met? Is this what happened? Oh, for a simple mind! I have read the strange case above (WFW), but as a lay person, still cannot really fathom what happened, ie who or what ‘won’. I infer it this Equs used WFW, then avoided paying, and duly defended itself by claiming the original agreement was void, so it owes WFW nothing more. But this argument was shown invalid? Hence WFW are entitled to have their costs met? Is this what happened? Oh, for a simple mind!

]]> By: VCAT cancels bill and leaves solicitor wholly unremunerated for sloppy work http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2008/02/costs-under-a-void-costs-agreement/#comment-11721 VCAT cancels bill and leaves solicitor wholly unremunerated for sloppy work Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:51:21 +0000 http://legalsoapbox.wordpress.com/?p=532#comment-11721 [...] Had the solicitors turned up, they might have made an argument that they did what they were asked to do successfully for the amount the client was prepared to pay, though whether such an argument would have been available to them we can only guess at on the facts recorded in the brief reasons.  If a client knows in advance exactly how much a job is going to cost, and agrees to that fee, all the other costs disclosures (like who within the firm is going to do the work, that itemised bills must be sought within 30 days, and that interest will accrue at a certain rate on unpaid bills) are subsidiary, and a failure to make them would not, in many cases, justify keeping the lawyer out of his fees altogether.  Compare, for example, the Court of Appeal’s guidance on this issue in Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Wilmoth Field Warne (a firm) [2007] VSCA 280 (discussed by Legal Eagle here). [...] [...] Had the solicitors turned up, they might have made an argument that they did what they were asked to do successfully for the amount the client was prepared to pay, though whether such an argument would have been available to them we can only guess at on the facts recorded in the brief reasons.  If a client knows in advance exactly how much a job is going to cost, and agrees to that fee, all the other costs disclosures (like who within the firm is going to do the work, that itemised bills must be sought within 30 days, and that interest will accrue at a certain rate on unpaid bills) are subsidiary, and a failure to make them would not, in many cases, justify keeping the lawyer out of his fees altogether.  Compare, for example, the Court of Appeal’s guidance on this issue in Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Wilmoth Field Warne (a firm) [2007] VSCA 280 (discussed by Legal Eagle here). [...]

]]> By: Cases, cases http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2008/02/costs-under-a-void-costs-agreement/#comment-11723 Cases, cases Tue, 19 Feb 2008 05:21:35 +0000 http://legalsoapbox.wordpress.com/?p=532#comment-11723 [...] 19 February 2008: Fellow Melbourne law blogger Legal Eagle has kindly written a case note on Equuscorp v Wilmoth Field [...] [...] 19 February 2008: Fellow Melbourne law blogger Legal Eagle has kindly written a case note on Equuscorp v Wilmoth Field [...]

]]> By: On blogging http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2008/02/costs-under-a-void-costs-agreement/#comment-11722 On blogging Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:21:57 +0000 http://legalsoapbox.wordpress.com/?p=532#comment-11722 [...] Legal Eagle.  One result of the coffee was that somehow I charmed her into writing a second case note of interest to readers of this blog — this time on the long and not entirely straightforward [...] [...] Legal Eagle.  One result of the coffee was that somehow I charmed her into writing a second case note of interest to readers of this blog — this time on the long and not entirely straightforward [...]

]]>