Cassegrain v CTK Engineering; Cassegrain v Cassegrain [2008] NSWSC 457

Cassegrain v CTK Engineering; Cassegrain v Cassegrain [2008] NSWSC 457

The costs assessor and review panel failed to provide sufficiently precise reasons to identify the basis of their reductions and decision-making on disputed costs as required under the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) and relevant regulations, amounting to an error of law. GST was incorrectly awarded on costs where it should not have applied to non-residents. The matter was remitted to the panel for redetermination, and previous costs orders set aside.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal (costs) / Decision on Appeal and Consequential Orders
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part (on question of law); leave to appeal otherwise refused; matter remitted for redetermination; prior costs orders set aside.
Legal Topics
['costs Assessment' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'legal Profession Act 2004 (nsw)' 'review Panel Procedure' 'party/party Costs' 'gst on Costs' 'joinder of Defendants']
['equity' 'costs'] ['costs Assessment' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'legal Profession Act 2004 (nsw)' 'review Panel Procedure' 'party/party Costs' 'gst on Costs' 'joinder of Defendants']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal (costs) / Decision on Appeal and Consequential Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the costs assessor and costs review panel provided adequate reasons for their determination under the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW)' 'Whether GST should have been allowed on costs payable to a non-resident under A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cth)' 'Whether orders for costs correctly included or excluded certain disbursements and solicitors’ costs' 'Whether Claude Cassegrain was properly ordered to pay the costs of the costs assessment' 'Whether members of the costs review panel should be joined as defendants']

Ratio Decidendi

The costs assessor and review panel failed to provide sufficiently precise reasons to identify the basis of their reductions and decision-making on disputed costs as required under the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) and relevant regulations, amounting to an error of law. GST was incorrectly awarded on costs where it should not have applied to non-residents. The matter was remitted to the panel for redetermination, and previous costs orders set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part (on question of law); leave to appeal otherwise refused; matter remitted for redetermination; prior costs orders set aside.

Orders

  • ['Order that the application for leave to appeal under s 385 Legal Profession Act 2004 be dismissed.' 'Order that the appeal under s 384 Legal Profession Act 2004 be allowed.' 'Remit the decision to the third defendants (costs review panel) for redetermination.' 'Order that orders 1, 2 and 4 made and entered on 20...