HOW LONG DO YOU HAVE TO SEEK TAXATION OF YOUR BILL OF COSTS?

The Australian Professional Liability Blog Inbox x The Australian Professional Liability Blog via google.com 05:04 (6 hours ago) to me The Australian Professional Liability Blog How long do you have to seek taxation? Posted: 05 May 2014 06:53 PM PDT I blogged about one case which touched on the question of how long one has in which to seek taxation (Viscariello v Oakley Thompson [2012] VSC 351) here. In a subsequent decision last year, the Supreme Court of Victoria’s Justice McMillan decided a case by reference to two competing constructions of s. 3.4.38(5) which sets out the time limits for seeking taxation as between solicitor and own client (or directly engaged barrister and own client). Her Honour decided it is (still) the first to occur of the three events referred to in the 12 month time limit which is determinative of the deadline, despite the removal in 2007 of words in the earlier version of that provision which put that question beyond doubt. The three events are (i) the giving of a bill; (ii) the requesting of payment; and (iii) an unrequested payment. Her Honour rejected the client’s contention that each time a bill is given, or a copy provided, a new 12 month limit commences. Otherwise (I observe), each letter of demand would give the client a further 12 months in which to seek taxation, a result at odds with the Civil Procedure Act’s overarching purpose. Dal Pont’s Law of Costs (3rd ed, 2013) asserts simply that time begins to run either when the bill is given or the request for payment is made, citing Viscariello. The citation to Justice McMillan’s decision is [2013] VSC 696. Now I must argue the appeal to the Court of Appeal, and that is where you come in. I have Professor Dal Pont, the Costs Judge (Justice McMillan dismissed an appeal from the Costs Judge) and two other Supreme Court judges (Ferguson and McMillan JJ) on my side, but I want more. I am looking for other authorities on the question of the interpretation of this and like provisions (such as ss. 3.4.39(3), and 3.4.40(3)) and ACT’s s. 294A(5), NSW’s s. 350(4), NT’s s. 332(5), Qld’s s. 335(5), Tas’s s. 319(5), and WA’s s. 295(6)). I am of course engaged in the desultory task of interrogating Austlii and Jade Barnet in this regard, but often enough there are unpublished Supreme Court authorities of Taxing Masters and the like tucked away in the collections of the learned readership of this little newsletter, and if you are willing to share them, I will be delighted.