Firm faced claim alleging it failed to properly prepare, lodge tax returns
Queensland’s Supreme Court ordered a plaintiff, a family trust’s trustee, to pay the defendant firm’s costs, calculated on a standard basis up to and including 30 September 2024 and on an indemnity basis on and from 1 October 2024.
The family trustee was established in mid-2007. Ms Marks served as its trustee, while Mr Featherstone and his family members were its beneficiaries.
Ms Marks was sole shareholder of Ashala Modelling Agency Pty Ltd, as well as its sole director until 23 February 2007. Mr Featherstone replaced Ms Marks as trustee of the family trust on 6 April 2011.
The defendant, a firm of solicitors, performed work involving the family trust and Ashala. In 2009, the firm also advised Mr Featherstone regarding a tax audit. The firm’s principal ran the firm as a sole practitioner beginning in October 2008 and ceased legal practice in July 2011.
The plaintiff, as the family trust’s current trustee, brought the present claim. He alleged that the firm acted negligently in:
On 7 November 2025, in Surman v Gateway Lawyers (A Firm) [2025] QSC 287, the Queensland Supreme Court dismissed the claim as statute-barred.
The firm sought costs on the indemnity basis under r 361A of the Uniform Civil Procedures Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR). On Nov. 14, it filed and served cost submissions. It also submitted a supporting affidavit from its solicitor, which exhibited an offer to settle with the plaintiff.
The plaintiff failed to timely file and serve his written cost submission, as required by the court’s directions.
On 15 December 2025, in Surman v Gateway Lawyers (A Firm) (No 2) [2025] QSC 346, the Supreme Court of Queensland ordered the plaintiff to pay the firm’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding, including any reserved costs. The court specified the periods for calculating standard and indemnity costs.
The court ruled that this case met the three requirements stated in r 361A(1) in the UCPR, such that the plaintiff should pay the firm’s costs calculated pursuant to r 361A(2), unless he could show that another cost order was appropriate in the circumstances.
First, regarding r 361A(1)(a), the court noted that the firm’s solicitors sent the plaintiff a 30 September 2024 email, expressing the firm’s readiness to resolve the claim on the terms stated in a settlement deed attached to the email. The court pointed out that the plaintiff did not accept the offer contained in the settlement deed.
Second, regarding r 361A(1)(b), the court acknowledged the claim’s dismissal in November.
Third, regarding r 361A(1)(c), the court accepted that the firm, indemnified under an insurance policy and represented by solicitors, was willing and able at all times to abide by the terms of the settlement deed if the plaintiff had executed it.
The court concluded that the plaintiff, who filed no cost submissions or supporting materials, failed to discharge his onus to establish that some other cost order was appropriate in the circumstances.
