Multimillion-dollar costs order stings firm, principal lawyer for overcharging council

Redenbach was retained by the council to assist in its litigation against builders and architects of the Broken Hill Civic Centre, which ultimately settled and agreed to pay $4.5 million in legal costs.

By the end of the retainer, Redenbach’s bills reflected increased rates from $390 an hour to $750, made claims for more than 30 hours worked in a single day, and included a 25 per cent “uplift fee” that the council did not agree to either before or during the proceedings.

Justice Elisabeth Peden was critical of Redenbach for his failure to answer simple questions and his “self-serving” or false evidence.

During cross-examination, it emerged that Redenbach alleged the council’s solicitors for the litigation against him were negligent and made complaints about them to the ACT Law Society.

He also commenced eight separate proceedings in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) against councillors who made allegations about the instructions given to continue the litigation.

Redenbach denied the actions were “done for some forensic advantage”, but failed to justify them or the timing.

VIEW ALL

“I consider they speak against his credit,” Justice Peden said.

For disbursing trust money to Redenbach Legal and Redenbach himself in breach of its fiduciary duty, Justice Peden ordered that they reconstitute the trust funds in the amount of $1,676,010.89.

This is in addition to an order that the Redenbach parties repay the council just over $767,600, being the difference between the higher rates charged and the hourly rates they were actually entitled to.

Council is also entitled to $504,698 due to misleading representations Passer Par made about a bill of costs arrangement.

Due to the difficulty in determining just how much the council overpaid, Justice Peden referred the matter to a costs expert, who will also consider whether “time not charged” fees are recoverable.

The Redenbach parties advanced two cross-claims that alleged the council was indebted in respect of the unpaid invoices for the uplift and deferred fees, and alleged councillors misled them by orally agreeing they could charge the higher fees and the uplift fee.

Justice Peden dismissed both cross-claims.

Redenbach did not respond to a request for comment.

Unauthorised uplift fee fuels dispute

In determining the only contractual arrangement between Redenbach’s firm and the council, Justice Peden found the council was not and is not liable for uplift fees and deferred fees.

Justice Peden also rejected that there were multiple costs agreements, pointing instead to the agreement made under the tender process.

The council had a process to increase fees, including written requests, a formal written response from council and a revised fee schedule.

Redenbach “never sought written confirmation from anyone at council about different rates”, Justice Peden determined.

In her written decision, Justice Peden also rejected a number of Redenbach’s version of events that spoke to this uplift fee.

Justice Peden did not accept that the council was content to apply the 25 per cent fee, particularly because it would have made the builder litigation “not only pointless, but very likely to result in a loss to council even if it recovered close to 100 per cent of the fees charged”.

In September 2022, tensions between the council and Redenbach reached a head when one councillor questioned the charges for travel time between Sydney and Broken Hill, where his firm was located.

Redenbach fired back a “defensive and petulant” reply in minutes.

“On the plane we were working in preparation for what is a very large exercise. I did not bill all of my time during that exercise. Nor did I charge for taxis, accommodation or airfares. Nor did I bill for the disruption to my practice,” Redenbach said.

“If this is challenged, then I will pursue all of these cost[s]!”

He added he was “entitled to charge uplifts and increase our costs and to date have not done so for several years”, but Justice Peden said this suggested entitlement was never explained.

When the council responded by repeating its concern that the legal costs were in excess of $10 million, Redenbach claimed that figure was untrue and false and demanded he “formally” withdraw “slurs”.

Justice Peden said had Redenbach considered he was entitled to charge the uplift fees at that time, then he would have known the total amount for the litigation was around $10 million, “and he would have no further reason to be offended” by the email.

“This further tells against any agreement for uplift fees,” she added.

Justice Peden rejected Redenbach’s evidence that he was “transparent” with the council about the uplift and deferred fees and that his invoices accurately recorded time worked.

In July 2023, the trust money was dispersed, including to Redenbach Group’s office trading account, Redenbach’s direct investment account, and to various credit cards, sundry debtors and legal expenses of Redenbach Group or Redenbach himself.

Justice Peden accepted the council’s submission that Redenbach Group’s payment to itself was a breach of its fiduciary duty involving the making of an unauthorised profit “because Redenbach Group was not entitled to charge the uplift fees or ‘time not charged’”.

Inaccurate invoices record excessive working hours

Various invoices issued by the Redenbach parties inaccurately recorded the time actually spent by solicitors on the matter.

For example, Redenbach charged for 31.12 hours for 6 December 2018; 25.5 hours for 18 April 2019; 103 hours for 8, 9 and 10 May 2019; and 34.5 hours for 19 September 2019.

Redenbach denied these were intentionally false, that he was recklessly indifferent to their accuracy, or that he failed to take appropriate care in their preparation.

His excuses included that there was “international travel involved, international time zones involved”, there was “a minor clarification or discrepancy”, and an operator may have incorrectly entered the time into the systems but it was an “understandable slip”.

In cross-examination, Redenbach added he was “on my sick bed doing it with boxes being delivered to my home”.

“I remember that time vividly,” Redenbach said.

“It was a difficult time for me, because my dog died, and I couldn’t even – I couldn’t even lift her up to have her euthanised. So, I do remember it very, very well, that work, and that work was done on the days in the affidavit exhibit that I gave you.”

Justice Peden was unable to accept that the invoices were “generally correct”, having regard to other people within the practice billed more than 20 hours per day on various days, and the costs consultant who considered the bill of costs had been “embarrassingly drafted”.

Bill-of-costs dispute

In late March and early April 2022, Redenbach contacted two costs consultants for estimates to draw a bill of costs.

Convinced into believing it would be cheaper than external costs consultants, the council engaged Passer Par to prepare a bill of costs.

The fee for preparing the bill of costs was in excess of $973,131, and the filed bill of costs claimed professional fees of $6,886,557, disbursements of $1,055,634, and a $79,421 filing fee.

Justice Peden noted the hourly rates of the consultants were materially lower than Passer Par’s hourly rates and, unlike the costs consultants, Redenbach’s firm did not propose to “cap” the amount.

Passer Par also did not have the “demonstrated expertise” in preparing a bill of costs to have a reasonable basis it could carry out the estimate in a more cost-effective way.

Citation: Council of the City of Broken Hill v Redenbach Group Pty Ltd trading as Redenbach Legal [2026] NSWSC 262.