Furlong v Wise & Young Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 647

Furlong v Wise & Young Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 647

There was no proper basis for the solicitor to advance allegations of dishonesty and serious misconduct on the urging of the client alone. The lack of evidentiary support meant the parties named as proposed cross-defendants incurred costs without reasonable cause in circumstances for which the solicitor was responsible. Costs should be paid by the defendant companies and, if not paid, by their solicitor.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Kathleen Jeanne Furlong; Second Plaintiff: Mark Andrew Furlong; First Defendant: Wise & Young Pty Limited; Second Defendant: Defined Properties Investment Pty Limited; Third Defendant: Wyse & Young International Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Equity Expedition List / Procedural and Other Rulings
Outcome
Defendants and their solicitor to pay costs thrown away by proposed cross-claim; solicitor to pay costs if unpaid in time specified.
Legal Topics
Costs, Professional Misconduct, Civil Conspiracy, Pleadings
Civil Procedure Legal Profession Costs Professional Misconduct Civil Conspiracy Pleadings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kathleen Jeanne Furlong

First Plaintiff

Mark Andrew Furlong

Second Plaintiff

Wise & Young Pty Limited

First Defendant

Defined Properties Investment Pty Limited

Second Defendant

Wyse & Young International Pty Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Expedition List / Procedural and Other Rulings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether serious allegations of dishonesty and professional misconduct in a proposed cross-claim had a proper basis for pleading
  2. 2 Whether costs should be ordered against the solicitor who drafted the cross-claim

Ratio Decidendi

There was no proper basis for the solicitor to advance allegations of dishonesty and serious misconduct on the urging of the client alone. The lack of evidentiary support meant the parties named as proposed cross-defendants incurred costs without reasonable cause in circumstances for which the solicitor was responsible. Costs should be paid by the defendant companies and, if not paid, by their solicitor.

Court Disposition

Defendants and their solicitor to pay costs thrown away by proposed cross-claim; solicitor to pay costs if unpaid in time specified.

Orders

  • The defendants pay to the proposed cross-defendants the costs of considering both forms of cross-claim and for specified hearing dates.
  • Costs specified at $6,500 to be paid by 5pm on 8 June 2016.