The NSW District Court ordered the former client of Sydney practice Chandlers International Lawyers to pay costs and the sum of $121,724 following an argument over whether they came to an agreement that the legal costs would be capped at half that amount.

Judge Robert Newlinds said that in the law firm’s favour was the fact that its solicitors were “fastidious” in their compliance with the provisions of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) “concerning costs agreements and disclosures of estimates from time to time”.

“There has been tendered before me a raft of correspondence to the effect commencing on 12 October 2018, when [the client] first consulted them about two potential claims that he felt he had, and going all the way through to 3 September 2020,” Judge Newlinds said.

There were three issues Judge Newlinds had to consider, including an allegation that the firm and the client came to an agreement in early October 2018 that all legal fees would be capped at $60,000.

While Judge Newlinds accepted “unreservedly” that the client “honestly believes” that such a conversation took place and he would not have to pay more than the $60,000, he also trusted the honesty of the firm.

“Courts have for many years recognised the fallibility of human memory and the ability of people’s memory, no matter how honest the memory might be, to misremember the events, especially in circumstances where they have had to go over the event many times.

“And, in the context of when, with the benefit of hindsight, the person would prefer what they remember to have happened to be the fact rather than what actually happened,” Judge Newlinds said.

What it came down to was documents created contemporaneously by the solicitors and sent to the client.

VIEW ALL

“Suffice to say every document by the solicitors after the 10 October meeting is entirely inconsistent with [the client’s] recollection of what he says was said at the meeting and are entirely consistent with [the law firm principal’s] evidence,” Judge Newlinds said.

He said this meant it was “very unlikely” anything the client remembers was said and, even if it was, “it was clearly superseded” by the written contract created when the solicitors issued their costs agreement.

“For those reasons, I am not satisfied that [the client’s] defence based on the alleged oral conversation of October 2018 to the effect that there was a $60,000 cap in relation to the fees has been made out,” Judge Newlinds said.

Naomi Neilson

Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly. 

You can email Naomi at: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.