Two men, one of whom was a lawyer, have hired a company in Queensland for two million real estate developments. Companies controlled by the two companies and other companies controlled by only one of them, all involved in the developments, were also customers. It appears that customers are responsible for several costs, not jointly, for costs in different storage items, some of which are exclusively related to a single company. The company decided to conclude a cost agreement, which would cover all work related to the evolution of the situation for all companies. So far, so good. But the company also decided to provide cost disclosure for all issues. “If a law firm doesn`t reveal to a client… Everything that is asked of this department to be disclosed and the customer… has entered into a fee agreement with the law firm, the client … May also apply to the cancellation of the cost agreement in accordance with section 3.4.32.” If you want to set aside a legal cost agreement, you can go to the courts or to THE QCAT. To apply to QCAT, you must meet the 2015 Practice Direction 2 application requirements – Legal Profession Act 2007 Legal Profession Act (PDF, 187.3 KB).
This exercise direction describes the information you need in your application, the required documents and the QCAT procedure. The company set the hourly rates according to which it wanted to be paid, and then estimated that its costs of acting in many different cases were between $10,000 and $40,000 per month. The number of months of work required was not appreciated. In addition, no estimate was given for a case or even a client. The scope of the cost agreement has been broad and should include all work related to the evolution of the company, including work that could result in future circumstances not yet contemplated. Neither the group as a whole nor the individual clients received an estimate of their legal costs or their total legal cost. These were objectively serious cost losses. Too many requests to cancel cost agreements are submitted or threatened on the basis of cost failures that were not relevant to the client`s decision to enter into the contract. For the fickle and the sun, s. 3.4.17 (3) is a bit seductive, a flashing light that beckons towards error. But now the Queensland Supreme Court has established the law in a concise decision because of the brief contraction of such an argument: Barclay against McMahon Clarke (A Firm)  QSC 20. Section 3.4.17 also states that in the event of a default, counsel cannot sue for costs as long as there is no taxation between the lawyer and his own client and that these costs should be reduced in proportion to the seriousness of the delay.
You may think that the cost agreement was not fair or reasonable because, for example, section 3.4.32 indicates that a customer can ask to set aside a cost agreement if it is not fair and reasonable. If you have instructed a legal practitioner to provide legal services on your behalf, there may be disagreement about the cost agreement you have with them. The implicit implication of all this is that it was appropriate to penetrate the corporate veil, and that it was two men more or less in partnership with different corporate events who were able to be looked at fairly. Another result could occur in circumstances where different clients were not as comfortable with each other. In Section 3.4.17 (3) of the Legal Profession Act 2004, however, it is stated that the applicants have not demonstrated that they would have acted differently if they had provided correct information, which was fatal: