Re Solfire Pty Ltd [1998] QSC 92 Archives

The case law of lawyers bills in England, India, Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong

admin9 August 2022 21 August 2022 Legal profession, litigation, Professional fees Cook v Gillard, Haigh v Ousey, Ivimey v Marks, Jackson & Anor v. Creswick Middleton Solicitors [2000] QDC 46, Joanne Murdock, Keene v Ward, Murdock v Sterling Law (Qld) Pty Ltd [2019] QDC 226, Piper Alderman v Smoel, Queensland Mushrooms Pty Ltd & Ors v Hawthorn Cuppaidge and Badgery [2002] QSC 76, Ralph Hume Garry v Gwillim, Re Solfire Pty Ltd [1998] QSC 92, Tabtill No 2, Tabtill No 2 Pty Ltd & Ors v DLA Phillips Fox, Zizza v Seymour, Zizza v Seymour [1976] 2 NSWLR 1352 Comments

Introduction

For a very long time in Commonwealth legal systems, the legal profession has been regulated for the benefit of clients of lawyers and the public at large. Among other things, there has been a recognised public interest in protecting those liable to pay legal fees from overcharging by lawyers. One of those protections is and has been the legal requirement for a bill to be provided so that the client can seek advice on the fees and charges.
Continue reading “The case law of lawyers bills in England, India, Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong”

This website and the contents of this blog are not legal advice.

If you use this website or blog, you are not entering into a

lawyer-client relationship with our firm.

Furthermore, the contents of this blog are intended to be informative

and entertaining.

The posts in this blog are not intended to be legal advice and you are

not authorised to rely on any of the content as legal advice.

This website and blog should not be used as a substitute for

obtaining legal advice from an independent lawyer.