Edward Ted Lakis and Anor v Michael Victor Lardis and Anor (No 4) [2018] NSWSC 1566

Edward Ted Lakis and Anor v Michael Victor Lardis and Anor (No 4) [2018] NSWSC 1566

The Plaintiffs' claimed costs for the gross sum costs application were unreasonable for a one day application, particularly given the purpose of a gross sum costs process as a time-efficient and cost-saving alternative to assessment and the use of an expert report. A broad brush assessment allowed $80,000 for solicitors after a 20% discount, 64% of counsel fees and 80% of disbursements, totalling $106,530.92. Because the ex parte freezing order application was arguably unnecessary and may have been more appropriately dealt with by short service, but was not entirely unreasonable given the history and acrimony, a further modest 5% discount was applied, producing $101,204.37.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Equity Expedition List / Determination of Costs of the Gross Sum Costs Application and Costs Concerning Lifting of Ex Parte Freezing Orders
Outcome
Plaintiffs' costs of the gross sum costs application assessed at $101,204.37 after a further 5% discount for the arguably unnecessary ex parte application; parties invited to prepare short minutes.
Legal Topics
['gross Sum Costs Order' 'lump Sum Costs Order' 'costs Discretion' 'ex Parte Freezing Orders' 'disclosure on Ex Parte Applications']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['gross Sum Costs Order' 'lump Sum Costs Order' 'costs Discretion' 'ex Parte Freezing Orders' 'disclosure on Ex Parte Applications']

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

Costs Application in Equity Expedition List / Determination of Costs of the Gross Sum Costs Application and Costs Concerning Lifting of Ex Parte Freezing Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether a lump sum or gross sum costs order should be made for the Plaintiffs' costs of the gross sum costs application." "What amount should be allowed for the Plaintiffs' costs of the gross sum costs application." "Whether the Plaintiffs' ex parte application for freezing orders should affect the costs order or discount to be applied." 'How costs should be dealt with where the application to lift freezing orders was resolved by consent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiffs' claimed costs for the gross sum costs application were unreasonable for a one day application, particularly given the purpose of a gross sum costs process as a time-efficient and cost-saving alternative to assessment and the use of an expert report. A broad brush assessment allowed $80,000 for solicitors after a 20% discount, 64% of counsel fees and 80% of disbursements, totalling $106,530.92. Because the ex parte freezing order application was arguably unnecessary and may have been more appropriately dealt with by short service, but was not entirely unreasonable given the history and acrimony, a further modest 5% discount was applied, producing $101,204.37.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' costs of the gross sum costs application assessed at $101,204.37 after a further 5% discount for the arguably unnecessary ex parte application; parties invited to prepare short minutes.

Orders

  • ["The Plaintiffs' costs of the gross sum costs application should be $106,530.92." 'A further 5% discount should be applied, resulting in $101,204.37.' 'The parties are invited to prepare short minutes to give effect to the reasons.']