The costs dispute between the reputation repair shop Giles George and its former client, barrister and celebrity cavoodle owner Gina Edwards, appears to be going nowhere fast.

Rebekah Giles acted for Edwards in her defamation stoush with the Nine Network over broadcasts and online articles about the contested ownership of Oscar the dog.

In April 2023 she was awarded $150,000 damages by Justice Michael Wigney and then the following June he said she could have partial indemnity costs on a lump sum basis, with a registrar as referee.

Then it emerged early this year that Edwards was in dispute with her lawyers over their costs – reported in Nine’s fishwraps as being “around $1.2 million all up”.

Wigney said he was looking at a “dog’s breakfast” and that he had feared all along that sending the issue to the referee would “go feral”.

He was right about that.

Nine’s brief claimed that the referee’s report was founded on a false premise because it relied on misleading information concerning the hourly and daily rates charged by senior counsel for Edwards, Sue Chrysanthou.

At this point Wigney said that the whole case was about “rats and mice” and he wished he had sent the costs off for taxation.

Giles George was given leave to intervene and asked that Nine’s money be paid into court. In February, Wigney granted that application pending determination of the solicitors’ equitable lien on the lump sum costs amount.

That was not the only thing going off-piste. Edwards also had an outstanding complaint against the firm with the Law Society concerning overcharging. Also, she claimed that Rebekah Giles “coached” her evidence in cross-examination and she had been billed for briefing journalists about the case.

Giles is described in one of the newspaper reports as “pugnacious”.

In March, Wigney referred the matter for mediation saying he hoped that would take some of the “heat and excitement” out of the matter. It was agreed that money should be paid out for counsels’ fees and other disbursements.

On May 14 a mediation was held, but nothing further has been heard.

Edwards has sought leave to appeal Wigney’s ruling that the costs be paid into court. So on it goes.

Last month it came to light that the ABC applied to get access to an affidavit filed by Giles George, which included a copy of the costs agreement between the firm and Edwards.

This was strongly opposed by the reputation law shop, claiming it “contains commercially sensitive information about fee structures and billing practices” and that disclosure might prejudice the firm’s broader commercial interests and competitive position.

Wiggers wouldn’t have a bar of it. He said that even though it was not formally read, it was clear it was relied on for the application to intervene – accordingly it was not necessary to suppress the exhibit so as to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

In any event, the document was not used by the ABC because the related program on Radio National had already gone to air.

Justinian applied for third-party access to the fee agreement and found the following fee structure for Giles George:

$725 plus GST per hour for a principal;

$450 plus GST per hour for a senior lawyer;

$400 plus GST per hour for a junior lawyer;

$300 plus GST per hour for a graduate;

$250 plus GST per hour for a paralegal;

$150 plus GST per hour for an administrative assistant.

There is also provision for a 25% uplift which had to be clarified in a later version of the agreement due to a “clerical error”.

Enough to keep the wolf from the door but, apparently, nothing unduly controversial in today’s high-stakes world of reputational repair.

Even the unqualified people, like paralegals and admin assistants, are fetching attractive bikkies.

Basically, Edwards would only get a bill from Giles George if she was successful and got a costs order in her favour, or settled and received money for costs.

Alanah Tannous, an associate of the firm, emailed Edwards in February 2023, saying:

“If you are successful, damages that are awarded to you will be payable within 21 days and the parties will have to engage in the taxation process to determine costs …

It is our usual practice, together with the client, that we come to an arrangement to (i) take into account likely disbursements associated with the costs assessment and (ii) the equitable division of any judgment to be distributed prior to the realisation of any costs settlement or award.

Rebekah has suggested that we cross this bridge when we come to it. There are no hard and fast rules about it but we wanted to flag this with you now.”

No doubt, Edwards was anticipating bigger damages, but then Wigney thought that she engaged in subterfuge to obtain possession of Oscar from Mark Gillespie, with whom she was in dispute about the ownership of the pooch – the dispute that Channel Nine latched onto.

“Ms Edwards was not a co-owner of Oscar and it is at best highly doubtful that she had any legal or enforceable right to obtain possession of the dog …”

All that existed was a loose arrangement that Edwards and her husband, Ken Flavell, had possession of Oscar from time to time.

“… the evidence does not support a finding that she genuinely and honestly believed that she had the legal right to obtain possession of Oscar.”

She only came to believe she did based on mistaken, informal advice from a family law practitioner.

Retired Melbourne barrister, Geoffrey Gibson, who was no slouch himself when it came to defamation cases, had this to say on his blog:

“All lawyers should be ashamed. A petty tiff over a petty insult, if litigated at all, should be determined in a morning by a magistrate with no prior hearings, pleadings, or witness statements. Damages could in fact capped at say, $20,000, and costs at, say, $5000. That would still make any such action at best problematic, but damages at about twice the level of average earnings for such a trifle are absurd, and costs of $1,000,000 are obscene.

All we lawyers should therefore be ashamed. The word ‘squalor’ is inadequate. Jack Cade may have had the answer.”

Who said that defamation litigation could not be hugely engaging.

See: Affidavit of Rebekah Ruth Giles – fee agreement exhibit