Login
Tasmanian firm loses $22k costs order for disclosure failures
A boutique Tasmanian firm had an order for $22,000 in legal costs thrown out when a court found it failed to make appropriate disclosures.
Naomi Neilson
An order in the Magistrates Court to grant law firm Ogilvie Jennings its claim for legal costs in the sum of $22,174.92 was overturned on appeal in the Tasmanian Supreme Court earlier this month.
In the lower court, the client – who represented himself – claimed the firm allegedly did not act in his best interests, did not act in accordance with his instructions, and did not exercise reasonable care and skill.
The appeal was limited to the one ground, being that the Magistrates Court erred in determining he should pay costs because Ogilvie Jennings failed to make certain disclosures to him in writing.
Specifically, he alleged the firm failed to disclose the range of costs that may be recovered if he was successful in litigation and the range of costs that he may be ordered to pay if he was unsuccessful.
Acting Judge Shane Marshall found that if there had been disclosure to the client, Ogilvie Jennings would have a record of it.
“They have failed to produce any such record,” he said.
“It would not have been difficult for the respondents to check their records within the time frame of before, or very soon after, they were retained to act for the appellant in his building dispute.”
Given no material was shown to the court to prove the firm’s case, acting Judge Marshall said the court could draw a “reasonable inference” that no such disclosure was ever made to the client.
The decision of the Magistrates Court was set aside.
At the commencement of the hearing, Ogilvie Jennings complained that the client did not raise “squarely” the disclosure issue before the Magistrates Court and it should not be considered in the Supreme Court.
However, acting Judge Marshall noted the client was unrepresented in the Magistrates Court and only considered the issue after he engaged lawyers to assist him in finding possible appeal grounds. The client was then unrepresented for the remainder of the Supreme Court hearing.
“Having regard to the appellant’s position as a non-legally trained litigant in person, the court decided that it would permit the appellant to raise ground two, albeit that it was not squarely raised before,” he said.
The case is Hansch v Mollross & Ors Trading as Ogilvie Jennings [2025] TASSC 3 (7 February 2025).
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
