The annulment of the costs agreement under Article 185(1) is due to the infringement of a provision of Article 4 of Part 4.3 of the Unified Law. For example, § 180, which specifies the legal criteria for entering into a valid fee agreement. However, the cancellation of a fee agreement under Article 185(1) has nothing to do with the non-disclosure of costs, unless the non-disclosure takes place under the cost agreement. Disclosure requirements for practitioners are set out in Section 3. But this is the work of Article 178(1)(a) in which the material non-disclosure of costs constitutes the breach. „Note: If a fee agreement is void due to non-compliance with the disclosure requirements of this Part, the fees must be assessed before the law firm can claim reimbursement (see section 178(1)). If the law firm no longer has time to apply for a determination of costs, it is caught between the stone and the office if it cannot enforce the costs agreement because the Uniform Act nullifies the costs agreement. Thus, the „low point“ of the mine shaft after this fourth pit is an unknown, unaudited and unpredictable exercise to justify cost rates, scope of work performed and total costs billed without cost agreement before a legal officer whose main task – and main day-to-day experience – is to identify complaints of misconduct or unsatisfactory behavior by clients against Attorneys. The `designated local regulatory authority` in New South Wales for the purpose of resolving cost disputes where the cost agreement has been set aside by section 178(1)(a) of the Uniform Act is the New South Wales Legal Services Commissioner (see section 11 of the implementing Act, Table 1, item 13). having regard to the non-application by the manager of the rule on the request for an extension of the time limit, calculation of costs, as a designated court within the meaning of Article 198(4) (for the reasons set out above), a practitioner who does not request an assessment within the 12-month period provided for in Article 198(3), point (a), and whose agreement on costs is set aside under Article 185(1), must invoke their customary rights under the doctrine of restitution for unjust enrichment and claim a Quantum Meruit (cf. Pavey & Matthews v. Paul (1986) 162 CLR 221;  HCA 5 to 227-228, 250-251, 255-257, 263-269 for a statement of quantum meruit principles). Paragraph 178(1)(c) of the Uniform Act provides an unsatisfactory solution to this problem.
It provides that, in addition to the alternative of requesting a determination of costs in the event of a nullity of the cost agreement, the law firm may have its „cost dispute decided by the designated local regulatory authority or in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction“. The legal criteria for settling a dispute concerning costs in the event of the nullity of a contract of costs under Article 178(1)(a) are the criteria set out in general terms in Article 412(2) of the Unified Law: another problem relating to the nullity of contracts of costs concerns the consequences of a challenge under Article 185, paragraph 1 of the Uniform Law. Subsection 185(1) cancels the cost agreement if it „contravenes or contravenes any provision of this Division “. The cancellation referred to in Article 185(1) shall be effected by means of a consumer protection policy. Subsection 185(1) refers to the terms of the agreement and the circumstances in which it was made. This impossibility of extending the time limit for requesting the determination of costs means that the accountant must contractually claim reimbursement of his expenses if he has not requested an assessment within this 12-month limitation period. Trap No. 3 is the lack of a right to extend the time limit for requesting an assessment by a lawyer, although such a claim exists for a client and a third-party payer. Second, and above all, it considers that a declaration of annulment (on account of an infringement of the provisions relating to the costs agreement in Section 4.3 of Section 4) under Article 185(1) calls into question the valuation rule laid down in Article 178(1)(b) and (c). However, Article 185(1) does not interfere in any way with Article 178(1).
Once a cost agreement has been declared null and void, either due to the application of point (a) of Article 178(1), due to post-contractual non-disclosure of costs or Article 185(1), due to a breach of the provisions of the cost agreement (including an incorrect disclosure clause in a cost agreement), the cost assessor must estimate the costs on a quantum meruit (see Pavey & Matthews v Paul (1986) 162 CLR 221;  HCA 5 to 227-228, 250-251, 255-257, 263-269) regardless of the terms of the zero cost agreement, that is, regardless of the cost rates and the scope of work required to carry out the advance, as agreed to by the client at the beginning of the cost agreement. Article 185(2), like the marginal note to Article 185(1), appears to assume that a practitioner whose agreement on costs has become invalid by reason of Article 185(1) is entitled to request the determination of those costs if the claim for taxation is made within the period prescribed under Article 198, paragraph 1 of the Uniform Law. There is no problem with such an approach for an assessment request, as the practitioner would have the strict right to request an assessment if it is done in a timely manner. If a practitioner does not provide a reliable and up-to-date estimate of future costs after providing a reliable initial estimate at the time of entering into the cost agreement or in a concurrent disclosure document, the cost contract also becomes invalid, although this time under section 178(1)(a) of the Uniform Act. Failure to properly disclose constitutes a violation of section 3 of Part 4.3. Where is the practitioner whose agreement on costs has been annulled under Article 185(1)? The only legal assistance available here is found in article 185, paragraph 2, which provides: Pitfall 4 begins with the introductory reservation to article 184, which preserves the general right to bring an action for the conclusion of a contract „subject to this Act“. If a practitioner does not properly disclose his or her costs, in particular does not make a reliable estimate of future costs in the cost agreement, including the total cost of the advance, the application of Article 185(1) will invalidate the cost agreement ab initio because the agreement violates Article 4 of Part 4.3. Article 198(1) of the Uniform Law confers on the `third-party payer` (see Article 171 of the Uniform Law defining `third-party payer`), the `law firm` and the `other legal practice` (that is to say, the `mandated legal practice`) the right to request the determination of the `costs of the uniform law`.