In LPD Holdings Pty Ltd v Russells [2017] QSC 45, the applicant LPD Holdings (“LPD”) brought an application for the assessment of legal costs for legal services provided by Russells to LPD between May 2010 and May 2014 pursuant to 743A of the UCPR and s335(1) of the Legal Profession Act. The respondent, Russells, submitted that the proceedings ought be summarily dismissed pursuant to rule 293 of the UCPR or, alternatively, permanently stayed pursuant to rule 658 or to the Court’s inherent jurisdiction because the entitlement to the amount of the costs was res judicata or subject to issue estoppel, having been finally determined in previous proceedings by a judgment of the District Court. The respondent also submitted that it was unreasonable, in an Anshun sense, for the applicant not to have pursued any right to an assessment of costs in those earlier proceedings. Flanagan J found that the case did not permit summary dismissal of the application for costs assessment either on the basis of res judicata or issue estoppel because the cause of action in the previous proceedings and these proceedings were not the same, and the previous proceedings did not determine whether LPD may seek an order for an assessment of costs. As to the respondent’s submission on the basis of Anshun estoppel, his Honour considered there had been no examination of the merits of the claim in the earlier action. His Honour had regard to Clout v Klein [2001] QSC 401, and considered the test of unreasonableness in HM Hire v National Plant & Equipment [2014] 2 Qd R 44 in determining whether it was unreasonable for LPD not to have brought forward the claim in the earlier proceeding. His Honour ultimately considered that the Anshun estoppel may be limited to only bar an assessment of the tax invoices which underpinned the District Court judgment sum. The respondent’s application was dismissed. Hemmant’s List’s Peter Hastie QC appeared for the applicant. See the judgment here: http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2017/QSC17-045.pdf
