Reserved judgment — claim for barristers costs — barrister sole — District Court Rules 1992 — Limitation Act 1950. The fees of a barrister sole were claimed under the District Court Rules 1992. The barrister sole agreed to represent the defendant in a claim for compensation, an agreement existed between the barrister and the defendant that payment would not be required until the end of the process. The defendant failed to pay the claimed fees for two years before a demand was made by the barrister setting out a payment plan for the defendant to follow. The defendant responded that he was unable to meet this plan and the barrister revised it and reduced his fees. The defendant made two payments under this new plan before defaulting which prompted the barrister to make final demand by a set date, stating that if that demand was not met he would automatically withdraw. One further payment was made. The applicant sought the barrister's original fee less the fees already paid for by the defendant. The defendant claimed that the barrister was negligent, and that the application was barred by statute. The court found that the defendant could not make a counterclaim against the barrister in the proceedings as he was not a party; and held that the application was brought well within time under the Limitations Act. The court further found that the total fees that were able to be claimed was for the reduced fees offered by the barrister, as the court was not prepared to imply a term into the agreement that the defendant's failure to meet the payment schedule would allow him to seek his full, original, costs. The court found that the barrister was owed the outstanding $32,000 plus some interest, however full interest was not awarded as there was a delay in bringing proceedings. Judgment Date: 24 May 2017.