A Sydney barrister and solicitor have settled a dispute over a $320,000 bill initially estimated to cost $60,000 after an appeals court found two costs agreements were void and held that courts should take a āpurposive approachā to the rules governing costs disclosure obligations.Ā
An appeals court has found that a solicitorās caveat over his bankrupt clientās property was valid, after the client agreed to mortgage his property as security for up to $100,000 in legal costs, saying it was the only binding costs agreement they had.
A barrister can’t sidestep a clause in a costs agreement with a solicitor that limited when counsel fees are payable by breaching his disclosure obligations and nullifying the agreement, the High Court has been told.