Alice, who slipped at a flower display, first retained Gerard Malouf & Partners on a “no win, no fee” basis, but the relationship soured not long after an informal settlement conference fell apart.

Prior to a May 2023 hearing, Alice retained Brydens Lawyers, which reached out to Gerald Malouf & Partners for the files.

In return, Gerard Malouf & Partners sent a tripartite deed requesting Brydens provide an undertaking to protect its costs upon completion of the matter and retain its interests in a trust account.

Not long after, Alice and Coles agreed to settle the claim for $650,000, inclusive of costs, on the advice of senior counsel.

At the same time, Centrelink and Medicare requested compensation in the amount of $98,073 and $27,075, respectively.

This meant Alice would be left with just $34,881 from the $650,000.

Alice’s primary position was “that the settlement amount was too little and that the fees her lawyers have charged are excessive”.

VIEW ALL

Both firms agreed to have their bill of costs assessed and have undertaken to the court to do this expeditiously.

However, given the costs associated with that approach, Alice told the court she was hesitant to take that route.

She instead proposed giving 25 per cent of the money to the lawyers and paying Medicare and Centrelink out of her remaining share.

“The additional costs involved may not be substantial, but they are a consequence of her not accepting the quantum of the bills (which no doubt is perfectly understandable),” the court determined.

However, the court added it could not consider whether the settlement figure was “inadequate” and noted there is a consent judgment disposing of Alice’s claim on a “final basis”.

“It is also not within the jurisdiction of the court to order that the proceeds of settlement be distributed on a random percentage basis, not according to law,” the court concluded.