Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> An application by a client for cost assessment must be made within 12 months after the bill is given - (28 Jun 2022) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Lelas vs. Nigams Legal</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">Present is an application for an extension of time within which to have bills of costs rendered by the applicant's practitioner assessed pursuant to Section 295(7) of the Legal Profession Act 2008. 
An application by a client for cost assessment must be made within 12 months after the bill is given, or the request for payment was made to the client or third party payer, or the costs were paid if neither a bill was given nor a request made. A client, who is not a sophisticated client as defined under Section 252 of the Act, may make an application for an assessment to be made out of time. The court may grant an application for an assessment to be made out of time if, having regard to the delay and the reason for the delay, it determines that it is just and fair for the application to be dealt with after the 12 month period. Section 295(7) of the Act provides the court with the discretion to allow an assessment of costs beyond the 12 month limit prescribed. 
In order to obtain an enforceable judgment for the amounts owed, the Respondent could have had the bills assessed. Instead the Respondent sought summary judgment of the debt after any rights of the applicant to challenge the bills became time-barred in circumstances where the amounts are disputed and where the bills do not itemise the work done. Further, the Respondent will not provide itemised accounts unless the applicant is successful in the application, presumably on the basis that until that time, the applicant is not a person entitled to apply for an assessment of the legal costs to which the bill relates. The prejudice suffered by the Respondent is therefore losing the forensic advantage of pressing for a summary judgment application against the applicant who does not know to what work the legal costs in the lump sum bills relate. In all the circumstances that seems neither just nor fair. 
Present Court would refuse the extension of time to assess Invoice 979 (the family violence restraining order matter) and Invoice 1083 (the insurance matter). They appear to be discrete matters, do not appear to be excessive and there is no explanation for the delay in relation to the latter. It is just and fair to allow an extension of time in which to assess Invoice 1014 and Invoice 1093 being the costs of dealing with the criminal matters.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Bills, Time, Extension</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>