find the latest legal job
Banking Associate - 1-6PQE - Allen & Overy
Category: Banking and Finance Law | Location: United Kingdom
· Banking Associate - 1-6 PQE - Allen & Overy
View details
Academic Dean and Head of School of the TC Beirne School of Law
Category: Other | Location: Brisbane QLD 4000
· An outstanding opportunity · Provide educational, research and organisational leadership
View details
Senior Property Lawyer I Commercial Litigator
Category: Property Law | Location: Arncliffe NSW 2205
· Rapidly growing law firm, working with a highly experienced team in a high growth industry across all areas of property and strata law
View details
Senior Property Lawyer I Commercial Litigator
Category: Property Law | Location: All Sydney NSW
· Rapidly growing law firm, working with a highly experienced team in a high growth industry across all areas of property and strata law
View details
Senior Property Lawyer I Commercial Litigator
Category: Property Law | Location: Sydney NSW 2000
· Rapidly growing law firm, working with a highly experienced team in a high growth industry across all areas of property and strata law
View details
Can I have the bill, please?

Can I have the bill, please?

Brydens Lawyers has breached its statutory obligations to a client, with a judge finding that the personal injury law firm persistently refused to provide an itemised bill of costs, despite client requests to the contrary.

Brydens Lawyers has been found to have breached its contractual obligations to a client and acted in contravention of statutory duties under the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW).

In a NSW Supreme Court decision earlier this month, Justice Monika Schmidt described the conduct of the compensation law firm as a deliberate attempt to resist orders which could be made against Brydens.

“The evidence establishes that Brydens' problems are not the result of Mr Le’s actions,” Justice Schmidt said.

The judge found that the firm had “relied on difficulties” to prevent Than Thanh Le, a former client, from obtaining an itemised bill of costs associated with a personal injury claim that Brydens had initially acted for on Mr Le’s behalf.  

Mr Le, who suffered serious injury when he was hit by a forklift in 2005, dropped Brydens as his legal representatives in an action against his employer.

His decision to change firms came after an award of interim damages totaling $650,000 was made in his favour. However, that figure was reduced following a bill from Brydens, deducting $304,677.72 from his interim award. Nearly half of that $300K bill had been attributed to costs and disbursements.

According to Justice Schmidt’s 6 March judgment, Mr Le, who speaks limited English, only became aware of his right to challenge the bill issued by his former lawyers after he instructed new legal representatives.

A Vietnamese interpreter, who assisted Mr Le in writing a letter to Brydens before his decision to change firms in March 2014, gave evidence during the hearing. The interpreter told the court that Mr Le’s letter raised concerns about the carriage of his matter and advice he had received about a proposed settlement from his old employer.

One month after sending that letter, Gajic Lawyers were engaged to take over Mr Le’s personal injury claim matter. When Mr Le’s new lawyers requested that Brydens provide them with an itemised bill of costs, the events which followed were what Justice Schmidt called a self-imposed “difficult position”.

“Brydens was obliged by S 332A of the 2004 act to give Mr Le an itemised bill within 21 days of the request made on his behalf on 4 September 2014. [Mr Le] had instructed Gajic Lawyers in a timely way. His solicitors had pursued his request for the itemised bill soon after the appeal was settled and the question of the costs order made in Mr Le’s favour had to be resolved with the employer,” Justice Schmidt said.

“Mr Le was concerned about incurring further legal costs, but in the face of Brydens’ continued refusal to give him an itemised bill [...] he was, as was his evidence, finally left with no alternative but to pursue these proceedings,” she said.

The difficult position Justice Schmidt spoke of was Brydens’ response to the request for an itemised bill. In answer to the request, Brydens asked that Mr Le’s new lawyers return his file, which the firm then claimed had been subsequently lost. Brydens relied on the time delay to then argue a limitation period applied to the requirement that it provide Mr Le his itemised bill of costs.

Brydens went on state that a request for an itemised bill of costs was only valid within 12 months from the time that an initial bill of costs was given to the client. The firm relied on its own creative construction of section 332A of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) to read a 12-month limitation period into the section.

Justice Schmidt was critical of Brydens’ failure to retain Mr Le’s file and found that the firm’s construction of section 332A was wrong. She noted that section 332A appears in Division 7, not Division 11 of the Act.

Section 332A is not only concerned with the provision of an itemised bill for the purpose of a costs assessment. It is a general right in relation to billing,” Justice Schmidt said.

“In that regard, it is relevant to consider that the section appears in Division 7 ‘Billing’ of Part 3.2 Costs Disclosure and Assessment’, not Division 11 Costs Assessment of Part 3.2.”

“It is Brydens’ own actions which have resulted in it being in the difficult position in which it finds itself, unable to meet its obligations to Mr Le to maintain his files and facing undoubted difficulty in now complying with its obligations under S 332A, in circumstances when Mr Le still requires an itemised bill,” she said.

The judge found that there was no time limit on a request for an itemised bill under section 332A. She ordered Brydens to provide the client with his itemised bill of costs and granted leave for Mr Le to pursue a costs assessment out of time.

Like this story? Read more:

Book commemorates diamond milestone for WA law society

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

Can I have the bill, please?
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
Lawyers take to Twitter to share career stories
Jan 22 2018
Lawyers take to Twitter to share career stories
The #mypathtolaw hashtag has been embraced by legal eagles to swap stories with the Twitter communit...
Jan 22 2018
Legal body disappointed with DPP emails leaked to tabloid
The NSW Bar Association has expressed “profound disappointment” over leaked emails from the NSW ...
Gavel, legal book, criminal lawyers
Jan 19 2018
Three criminal lawyers named NSW magistrates
The NSW Attorney-General has announced the appointment of three new local court magistrates. ...
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...