A lawyer ordered to repay a client he overcharged by more than $60,000 has lost an attempt to have the judgment set aside.

The Supreme Court found last year that lawyer Rick Woolridge had overcharged Linda Swan, whom he had represented, by billing her five per cent monthly interest per month — 60 per cent annual interest — rather than five per cent annual interest.

Mr Woolridge, however, argued before the courts that Ms Swan had agreed to the higher interest rate and still owed him $24,000 in (principally) unpaid fees.

In February last year, the Supreme Court found in favour of Ms Swan, awarding her $63,498.60 and pre-judgment interest of seven per cent per annum until judgment, together with interest on the judgment debt at the same rate until payment.

However, according to another judgment, issued by Chief Justice Ian Kawaley on January 16, Mr Woolridge sought for the decision to be set aside on the grounds that Ms Swan had perjured herself.

Mr Woolridge alleged in an affidavit that Ms Swan had lied by saying she did not know and did not agree to the higher interest rate, using invoices reportedly discovered after the trial to support his claims.

According to the judgment, Mr Justice Kawaley found that there was no arguable case of perjury, adding: “What Mr Woolridge is in effect seeking to do is to argue that the court was wrong to decide against him at trial and to re-argue the matter which was fully argued in late January last year, before the same trial judge.

“The case that was rejected was substantially the same as the case that is being asserted again. Namely, the assertion that the plaintiff had in fact entered into a conscious agreement that the interest she was paying was 60 per cent per annum, or five per cent per month. That argument was roundly rejected by the court, in part on the basis of the defendant’s own witness.”

The Chief Justice said that the majority of the “new” invoices appeared to be different versions of invoices that Ms Swan had received.

“There was only one invoice which was accepted by the plaintiff’s counsel as being entirely new,” Mr Justice Kawaley wrote. “That was an April 10, 2009, invoice which does in fact set out a list of interest payments which the defendant (as I understand it) seeks to contend demonstrates the following: that had the plaintiff analysed these statements, she must have known she was being charged five per cent interest a month on the basis of an aggregate annual interest rate of 60 per cent per year.

“A similar argument was made (at trial) in respect of similar documents. For instance, the January 7, 2011, ‘new’ invoice corresponds to the invoice at page 14 of the plaintiff’s witness statement in terms of date, but is different in terms of the amounts set out. Oddly, the amounts set out in the new version recently produced are far higher than the amounts produced in evidence at trial.

“But the important point from my perspective is that in both cases, the interest which is set out in that statement four is of an amount that if properly analysed would have put the plaintiff on notice that she was being charged at a high rate.”

The Chief Justice wrote that even if Mr Woolridge was able to convince the court that the invoices should have been taken into account during the initial trial, it would not bear on the allegation of perjury as the court had already rejected the same argument.

While he accepted that Ms Swan had perjured herself by saying she had not promised to deliver a fee note for her final bill, he said it was not sufficiently connected to the judgment to warrant it be set aside.

Given the circumstances, the Chief Justice struck out Mr Woolridge’s summons, awarding Ms Swan legal costs on an indemnity basis.