Event and Time
Event Description
On 17 June 2019, a judgment of $40,351.87 plus interest and costs was entered against Sue Sepedah Davey in favor of Costanzo Lawyers Pty Ltd, the plaintiff's former lawyers. The judgment was made in default of a defense due to the plaintiff's failure to file one. Subsequent attempts by the plaintiff to set aside the default judgment were refused by the Magistrates’ Court.
Application and Claims
- Costanzo Lawyers Pty Ltd claimed professional legal fees and disbursements for services rendered pursuant to a retainer with Sue Sepedah Davey.
- The plaintiff argued the default judgment was irregular, contending that there were no detailed invoicing, the fees were excessive, and that prior consultations were not accounted for.
Judicial Decisions
- The judicial registrar and later a Magistrate both refused the initial and subsequent applications to set aside the default judgment based on a perceived lack of merit in the plaintiff's arguments.
- The learned Magistrate eventually ruled that no substantial defense existed, leading to the reaffirmation of the original default judgment.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Plaintiff's Claims:
- The plaintiff argued failure to provide an itemised bill despite several requests, which she claimed was a complete defense. - The legal fees were disproportionate given the work had mostly been undertaken by her previous solicitors. - Questions arose regarding the management of the $11,000 deposited into a trust account. - The impact of the judgment on her ability to secure loans due to the judgment debt.
- Defendant's Claims:
- Costanzo Lawyers maintained they provided regular updates and detailed bills. - Argues the fees were justified given the legal services rendered, particularly as they included barrister fees for her appeal. - Contended the plaintiff was opportunistically attempting to set aside a judgment without justifiable merit due to earlier unsuccessful attempts.