Cavar v Gombovic & Anor [2013] NSWDC 218

Cavar v Gombovic & Anor [2013] NSWDC 218

The summons was dismissed because Ms Cavar identified no relevant matter of law under s 384(1): the costs assessor had a properly constituted costs assessment, gave the parties an opportunity to make submissions, had no notice of any stay of the Local Court costs orders, and was entitled to proceed. The application for leave under s 385(1) also failed because it should have been brought in the Local Court, being the court that made the costs order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Costs Appeal From Decision of Costs Assessor and Application for Leave to Appeal / Summons Dismissed
Outcome
The plaintiff/applicant's appeal and application for leave to appeal were unsuccessful; the summons was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs Assessment' 'appeal on a Matter of Law' 'application for Leave to Appeal' 'stay of Orders' 'new Evidence']
['administrative Law' 'costs' 'legal Profession'] ['costs Assessment' 'appeal on a Matter of Law' 'application for Leave to Appeal' 'stay of Orders' 'new Evidence']

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

Civil Costs Appeal From Decision of Costs Assessor and Application for Leave to Appeal / Summons Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, in the absence of an order staying the Local Court orders made on 16 August 2012, the costs assessor was entitled to proceed with the assessment of costs.' 'Whether the plaintiff/applicant identified a matter of law for an appeal as of right under s 384(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2004.' "Whether the plaintiff/applicant's application for leave to appeal under s 385(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 could be brought in the District Court." 'Whether the St George Bank Fraud Report constituted new evidence justifying leave to appeal under s 385(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2004.']

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was dismissed because Ms Cavar identified no relevant matter of law under s 384(1): the costs assessor had a properly constituted costs assessment, gave the parties an opportunity to make submissions, had no notice of any stay of the Local Court costs orders, and was entitled to proceed. The application for leave under s 385(1) also failed because it should have been brought in the Local Court, being the court that made the costs order.

Court Disposition

The plaintiff/applicant's appeal and application for leave to appeal were unsuccessful; the summons was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The summons filed by the plaintiff applicant on 7 August 2013 is dismissed.' 'The plaintiff applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the respondent defendants on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered.' "The exhibits may be returned provided a copy of those exhibits is left on the court's file." 'Liberty to...