Contact Us

Use the form on the right to contact us.

You can edit the text in this area, and change where the contact form on the right submits to, by entering edit mode using the modes on the bottom right. 

46 Money St
Perth, WA, 6000
Australia

+61 8 6460 5179

Planning and Environment Law Firm Perth. 

Blog

VALUE BASED BILLING: AN EFFECTIVE MODEL FOR OUTCOMES BASED LEGAL SERVICES

Connor Fisher

Trends in the legal market identified by the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) 2017 report indicate that the most pertinent considerations for a client when engaging a firm are flexible billing methods, knowledge specialisation and individual lawyers, followed by past experience, tailored advice and personal relationships. Law firms that recognise and tailor their services to those needs will not only enjoy a healthy client base but also maintain committed and satisfied staff.

The ACC report also noted that, because of prevailing economic conditions, clients are carefully considering their legal budgets to ensure they are receiving real value for legal services. The overriding sentiment is that client resources are most efficiently and effectively spent by employing a lawyer that has the specialist knowledge to achieve desired outcomes at a fair price. 

The renewed focus on client value has led to a rise in the use of value based billing, otherwise known as fixed fee billing. This value based approach replaces the ‘cost-plus’ method of charging hourly rates and has many flow on benefits for both the client and the law firm.

Our experience has shown that value based billing requires law firms to have a greater understanding of the true cost of providing legal services. A better understanding of these costs enables lawyers to offer the client a transparent and upfront price that is agreed in advance, adequately budgeted for and linked to the performance and completion of specific outcomes. These are all essential elements for building a collaborative and long-lasting client-lawyer relationship.

Agreeing the price before work is commenced allows the law firm to holistically consider and allocate all internal resources required to achieve the stated outcome. This approach provides greater certainty to the client and reassurance that costs will not unexpectedly blow out. Lawyers also benefit from this approach as it provides greater clarity and flexibility in planning and producing the work required without the pressures of billing as many hours as possible. Removing the pressures of time based billing also increases workplace satisfaction by allowing lawyers to focus on achieving the outcome as agreed with the client.

Glen McLeod Legal is a boutique Town Planning and Environment law firm that applies the principles of value based billing. We can be contacted by telephone on (08) 6460 5179 or by email at glen@glenmcleodlegal.com.au.

2017 Who's Who Legal - Environment

Glen

Strategic Research Sponsor of the American Bar Association Section of International Law

 

We are delighted to announce that Glen McLeod has been selected by research with clients and peers as being one of the world’s leading Environment lawyers. He is one of a select few Australian lawyers to be recognised.

2017 Doyle’s Guide – Planning and Environmental Law

Angus McLeod

We are pleased to announce that Principal Glen McLeod has been recognised in the 2017 Doyle’s Guide as a pre-eminent legal practitioner in the areas of town planning and environmental law.

Glen McLeod has been practising town planning and environmental law for 40 years and in 2016 was the Law Society of WA’s Lawyer of the year.

At Glen McLeod Legal we pride ourselves on achieving sound outcomes and maintaining the highest commitment to lasting client relationships.

Our team provides authoritative and strategic advice as well as conducts significant litigation relating to development and subdivision approvals or compliance with development conditions, land compensation and valuation law claims, developer contributions for infrastructure, native vegetation clearing permits or prosecutions and contaminated sites or waste obligations.

We would be delighted to discuss with you or your clients any town planning or environmental law challenges that may be effecting your business.

WHO CAN CLAIM COMPENSATION FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE RESERVATION?

Angus McLeod

An important decision of the High Court was made on 8 February 2017, when it allowed an appeal against a decision of the Western Australian Court of Appeal on a landowner’s right to claim compensation for the loss in value of land affected by a public purpose reservation.

Southregal Pty Ltd and Mr David Wee together entered into a contract to buy a parcel of land. Prior to settlement of the contract, part of the land was reserved for regional open space under the Peel Region Scheme, a planning scheme made pursuant to the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) (PD Act). After settlement, the landowners applied to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for approval to develop the land.

The WAPC refused the development application and the landowners submitted a claim for compensation under section 173 of the PD Act, which provides that ‘a person whose land is injuriously affected by the making … of a planning scheme is entitled to obtain compensation’. The WAPC declined each claim on the basis that the landowners did not meet the requirements of section 173. The WAPC asserted that only owners of land at the time the land is reserved, and not subsequent purchasers, are entitled to compensation.

The landowners were successful in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.[1] The trial judge held that section 173 must be interpreted in light of the requirements in section 177(2), which allows for later purchasers to receive payment for the reservation of land. Accordingly, Beech J held that the plain meaning of section 177 gave the owner of land at the date a development application was refused a right to compensation.

On appeal to the WA Court of Appeal, the landowners were also successful.[2] The WAPC argued that when section 177(2)(b) is read in the context of section 173(1), the only persons entitled to obtain compensation under section 177(2)(b) are those who were owners at the date the land was reserved. The landowners argued that the words “owner of the land at the date of application” in section 177(2)(b) would be denied their natural and ordinary meaning if they were to be read as only extending to owners of land at the date of reservation.

However, the High Court allowed an appeal from the Court of Appeal decision.[3] The majority held:[4]

  • section 173(1) confers on the landowner an entitlement to, and identifies who may claim, compensation in the event that land is injuriously affected by the making or amendment of a planning scheme;
  • section 177(1) provides for the point in time at which compensation is liable to be paid. That is either when the land is sold or when the development application is refused or approved with conditions unacceptable to the applicant;
  • once a claim is triggered by one of the events in section 177(1), a later occurrence cannot trigger further claims. In the present case, once the land was sold to the respondents, the refusal of their development applications could not trigger a claim for compensation; and
  • like section 177(1), section 177(2) does not identify persons who may claim compensation. Its purpose is to identify the person to whom payment is made. Section 177(2)(b) ensures that payment is made to the landowner, despite the possibility that it may be a different person making the application for development approval. It is not intended to extend the category of persons entitled to make a claim.

Implications of Southregal

  • The Court did not consider in any detail whether an ‘owner’ includes testamentary or intestate succession, although until this point is clarified it would be safe to assume that the transfer of ownership extends to testamentary or intestate succession of the land.
  • Only an ‘owner’ of land at the date of reservation can claim compensation for injurious affection.
  • The ‘owner’ of land may include ownership obtained through testamentary or intestate succession from the owner at the date of the reservation.
  • Subsequent purchasers of reserved land cannot claim compensation for injurious affection.
  • Owners of reserved land may claim compensation either when they sell the land or when a development application is refused or approved subject to unacceptable conditions.

If you are seeking clarification on your rights to claim compensation, please do not hesitate to contact the team at Glen McLeod Legal.

 

[1] Leith v Western Australian Planning Commission [2014] WASC 499.

[2] Western Australian Planning Commission v Southregal Pty Ltd & Anor; Western Australian Planning Commission v Leith [2016] WASCA 53; 332 ALR 477.

[3] Western Australian Planning Commission v Southregal Pty Ltd & Anor; Western Australian Planning Commission v Leith [2017] HCA 7.

[4] see Kiefel and Bell JJ at [1] - [56]; Gageler and Nettle JJ at [57]-[95]; C.f. Keane J dissent at [96]-[170].