Council of the City of Broken Hill v Redenbach Group Pty Ltd trading as Redenbach Legal [2026] NSWSC 262
This decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Peden J) concerns a dispute between the City of Broken Hill (Council) and its former solicitors, Redenbach Legal, arising from legal fees charged in litigation relating to defects in the Broken Hill Civic Centre redevelopment.
The Council retained the defendant law firm through a statutory tender process governed by the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW). The firm acted in protracted litigation against architects and builders, during which legal costs escalated to approximately $10 million – far exceeding the Council’s eventual recovery, with the dispute partly settling in the Council’s favour for just $1.5 million.
The Council commenced proceedings seeking restitution of amounts paid, alleging that the solicitors charged fees beyond agreed tender rates, imposed “uplift” and deferred fees without contractual basis, billed for work not performed, and engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct regarding likely legal costs. The defendants (several Redenbach Legal entities) cross-claimed for unpaid invoices, asserting multiple costs agreements had been formed over time.
The Court rejected the existence of any such additional agreements, holding that the only binding costs arrangement arose from the original tender process. It found it commercially implausible that the Council would have agreed to complex fee structures conferring no discernible benefit, particularly in the absence of documentary evidence or proper disclosure.
The Court also found Mr Redenbach, principal of Redenbach Legal, to be a “thoroughly unimpressive witness” who “gave self-serving evidence” and even evidence which the Court considered was false.
Mr Redenbach also challenged the concept of time, when across several days in 2018 and 2019, he charged for more than 24 hours of work in a single day, including days with 32, 35 and even 36 hours of recorded time.
The Court found Mr Redenbach’s explanations for these ‘impossible’ time recordings to be ‘incredible’ and did not accept them as accurate.
Justice Peden held that the Council had been overcharged, including being billed at rates exceeding those agreed and for time not reasonably expended. The Court also found that representations made by Redenbach Legal as to likely costs were misleading, entitling the Council to compensation under statutory consumer protections.
Accordingly, the Council succeeded in recovering substantial sums for overpayment and damages. The defendants’ cross claim for unpaid fees was largely unsuccessful.
The case underscores the strict enforceability of costs agreements in public sector procurement, the fiduciary and statutory obligations of solicitors in billing practices, and the availability of restitution and statutory remedies where legal practitioners overcharge or mislead clients.
