A Sydney barrister is claiming almost $6 million in allegedly unpaid fees and interest from a solicitor dating back more than a decade, in a costly legal battle occupying an armoury of the city's lawyers.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Five barristers fought it out in the Supreme Court in Sydney on Friday in the protracted dispute between Christopher Bevan, a barrister from Eight Wentworth Chambers, and Sydney solicitor Evangelos Patakas.
Mr Bevan claims Mr Patakas owes him $4.1 million in costs and $1.7 million in interest for work done for a client on the instructions of Mr Patakas. But Mr Patakas argues Mr Bevan agreed he would only be paid if the client won their case.
Justice Robert McDougall noted "the bills in question go back to 2004" and the parties had tendered an "absurd" volume of material in a preliminary hearing on Friday, including "16 lever arch folders" of exhibits.
Mr Bevan, represented in court by Noel Hutley, SC, president of the NSW Bar Association, and junior barristers Philippe Doyle Gray and Julian Zmood, had wanted a costs assessor to determine his claims. This would not involve a court case.
But Mr Patakas, represented by Guy Parker, SC, and Sonia Tame, said the complex issues involved were "inherently unsuited" to the costs assessment process.
Mr Patakas sought an injunction in the Supreme Court to stop Mr Bevan continuing with his costs assessment applications.
"It is the solicitor's case that the barrister made repeated oral representations to the effect that he would accept instructions on a 'non-recourse', or conditional, or 'spec', basis," Justice McDougall said.
This meant he would only be paid if the client was successful.
Mr Bevan objected to affidavits setting out alleged conversations about the legal work being tendered in court on the basis they were "protected confidences" involving conversations between a client and their lawyers.
But Justice McDougall said the evidence was "vital to the solicitor's case" and "directly relevant to ...whether the barrister made the representations in question".
Mr Bevan's silk argued costs assessors were "fully capable of dealing with all the various objections that the solicitor raised" and "assessing what (if any) costs were payable".
But Justice McDougall concluded the court should deal with the question of whether Mr Bevan was entitled to the fees.
Justice McDougall continued a temporary injunction stopping Mr Bevan from proceeding with the costs assessment process. The court will expedite the hearing of the dispute between the men.
