King v Linney (No 3) [2010] NSWSC 902

King v Linney (No 3) [2010] NSWSC 902

The plaintiffs' application to revisit the costs order was dismissed because the original challenge to the defendants' solicitor's retainer was unfounded and based on unsubstantiated assumptions. There was no confidential information at issue, and no evidence to support revisiting the costs order.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Wendy Gay King; Second Plaintiff: Brendan John Murphy; First Defendant: Darren Linney; Second Defendant: Tanya Morris
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Application to Revisit Costs Order
Outcome
Plaintiffs' notice of motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Costs Order, Solicitor Retainer Challenge, Confidential Information
Practice and Procedure Costs Order Solicitor Retainer Challenge Confidential Information

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wendy Gay King

First Plaintiff

Brendan John Murphy

Second Plaintiff

Darren Linney

First Defendant

Tanya Morris

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Application to Revisit Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order made against the plaintiffs following their unsuccessful challenge to the retainer of the defendants' solicitor should be revisited on the basis of a factual misapprehension.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs' application to revisit the costs order was dismissed because the original challenge to the defendants' solicitor's retainer was unfounded and based on unsubstantiated assumptions. There was no confidential information at issue, and no evidence to support revisiting the costs order.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' notice of motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' notice of motion filed 10 June 2010 is dismissed with costs.