JUDGE: Where is the explanation for that? MR SCRAGG: That the figure prima facie appears to be reasonable, but when it's investigated, it's clear that it's wrong. JUDGE: Alright. MR SCRAGG: And when your Honour looks at it, you can see that two days' counsel-fee - or whatever it is, two and a half days, plus reading time - the figure prima facie six thousand is reasonable. But when you go to what's actually occurred, where the rubber meets the road, you can see that there's three attendances totaling seventeen hundred dollars, and in it which Mr. Gretsas allocates to that cost thrown away. And in truth that can't be so because, in relation to one attendance, he didn't need to attend on the 5th of April. And in relation to the second of April, there was also a payment dealt with. Giving the thing a …show more content…
As a matter of professional practice, that is inappropriate to say unless you have a foundation for saying it. Where is your foundation? MR SCRAGG: Your Honour, the absence of the redacted account is my foundation. It's a suspicion - - - JUDGE: Well, less than that - - - MR SCRAGG: - - - And when your Honour looks at it, you can see that he's done 30 hours’ worth of work, but there's no itemisation of what that work is. And before this matter could progress, we say, in fairness, he should provide that itemisation. But in any event, what he's done is identified his attendance times and the fees he's charged. He's charged seventeen hundred dollars for the work he's done in terms of appearances over those three days. And in relation to the argument that he refers you to, your Honour, again he has made the assertion that he's done 18 hours' work. But he won't produce the brief. He won't let us look at the brief, and we think your Honour's estimate of five hours is