Blog

Most litigation firms still charge by the hour, in six-minute units. If this is the method of charging, law firms should charge clients based on how much time was actually taken, not the time it used to take before AI was used. This is of course on the assumption that AI has reduced the time taken, which in many cases it has not.

If your law firm has an unpaid bill in Victoria, you have twelve months to have it taxed in the Costs Court. Missing that date does not always end the matter. The Supreme Court of Victoria does have discretion to allow assessments out of time. However, this requires a separate application before a Registrar of the Costs Court, including sworn evidence and likely incurring the costs of this application. For Melbourne and Victorian law firms, recovering unpaid legal fees through the Costs Court is time-sensitive.

Since Dive Lawyers Pty Ltd v The Manager, Costs Assessment [2024] NSWSC 721, we have heard it said that the twelve month deadline for a law practice to apply for a costs assessment no longer really bites. The decision is narrower than that. A practice that misses the deadline can still apply, but it then has to persuade the Manager, Costs Assessment to deal with the application. Our advice is the same as it has always been. Apply within twelve months.

At Rose Legal, we’re committed to supporting the legal profession through practical, CPD-accredited education. Through our seminars, we provide practitioners with access to real-world case experience and expert-led insights in the niche and technical field of legal costs.

At Rose Legal, we’re committed to supporting the legal profession through practical, CPD-accredited education. Through our seminars, we provide practitioners with access to real-world case experience and expert-led insights in the niche and technical field of legal costs.

In this Insight, Legal Costs Consultant Kieran Pulley of Rose Legal Costing examines the recent Court of Appeal decision in Sader v Elgammal [2025] NSWCA 111, which reinforces the discretionary nature of costs orders in Class 4 proceedings before the Land and Environment Court.

In this latest insight, Legal Costs Manager Darius Self examines a case that highlights the importance of proportionality, reasonableness, and timing when pursuing costs in litigation. Even where damages awarded fall short of expectations, a party may still achieve some success. Our latest blog unpacks the costs assessment process and offers guidance on how to approach it strategically to ensure your client’s recovery is maximised.

In this latest insight, Legal Costs Manager Darius Self examines a case that highlights the importance of proportionality, reasonableness, and timing when pursuing costs in litigation. Even where damages awarded fall short of expectations, a party may still achieve some success. Our latest blog unpacks the costs assessment process and offers guidance on how to approach it strategically to ensure your client’s recovery is maximised.

In this Insight, Rose Legal explores the recent decision in Lau v Anglican Community Services (No. 2) [2025] NSWDC 211, where the New South Wales District Court exercised its discretion to award costs despite the plaintiff receiving only nominal damages. The case raises important considerations for legal practitioners around the principles governing costs recovery, proportionality, and the relevance of settlement negotiations. It offers valuable guidance on how the courts interpret ‘success’ in litigation and when costs orders may still be justified despite minimal financial outcomes.

In this Insight, Rose Legal Paralegal Ana Guerron explores the recent New South Wales District Court decision in Willis v Orange City Council (No 2) [2025] NSWDC 242, and the important costs consequences of rejecting reasonable offers of compromise. This case highlights the practical significance of Calderbank offers and provides valuable lessons for legal practitioners on strategic litigation and costs recovery.