Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A former HWL Ebsworth client who failed to make out a claim he was induced into signing a costs agreement has had his appeal thrown out, including allegations that the magistrate “coached” the BigLaw firm’s counsel and applied an “unequal double standard”.
The Victorian Supreme Court dismissed all nine grounds and eight questions brought by Bingxing Hu against a decision of the Magistrates Court to award national firm HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (HWLE) just over $38,000, including interest and costs.
In defence of HWLE’s claim for $32,000 in legal costs, Hu told the Magistrates Court the firm was estopped from obtaining its fees on a fourth invoice because it had been “waived”, and no interest should be charged because negotiations extended the invoices’ due dates.
In a counter-claim, Hu alleged that HWLE provided a low initial cost estimate “to induce the defendant”. He claimed those fees were increased to “more than double the original estimate”, which imposed “unreasonable and unjust costs on the defendant”.
Hu also failed to make out the claim that HWLE failed to notify him of this allegedly significant increase in costs in a timely manner.
HWLE said its initial estimate was based on information “available at the time” and it provided a revised cost estimate “as soon as it was reasonably practicable to do so”. Hu accepted that revised estimate by continuing to instruct its solicitors, HWLE added.
On appeal before the Supreme Court, Hu claimed he was denied procedural fairness, the magistrate erred in applying the Legal Profession Uniform Law, the magistrate erred in law in relation to fiduciary duties and equitable doctrines, and erred by delegating his judicial power to determine “certain important matters”.
Hu also alleged there was a reasonable apprehension of bias, including that the magistrate “coached” the BigLaw firm’s counsel on how to make a proper statement, supplied missing legal authorities, reframed pleadings, and constructed legal arguments.
Associate Justice Peter Fary said the matters relied on by Hu “fall well short of giving rise to such an apprehension”.
“It was not incumbent upon the magistrate to act as a mute observer.
“He was entitled to, and did, ask questions of each of the parties, which were largely directed to clarifying their respective positions in a manner consistent with the ‘just, efficient, timely and cost-effective resolution of the real issues in dispute’,” Associate Justice Fary said.
The claim that the magistrate “excessively interrupted” Hu during his evidence was also dismissed, with Associate Justice Fary finding they were neither excessive nor gave rise to an apprehension of bias.
Hu also failed to allege the magistrate “praised” the firm on “about 12 instances” and only praised him “about 10 times”, including the magistrate’s observations that questions put to Hu by counsel “were not aggressive, simple, and put in a way that could be answered”.
Associate Justice Fary dismissed the appeal.
Citation: Hu v HWL Ebsworth Lawyers [2026] VSC 652.
