Barry v Coshott (No 2) [2014] NSWDC 57

Barry v Coshott (No 2) [2014] NSWDC 57

The plaintiffs satisfied s 190(1) and s 190(2) of the Legal Profession Act 1987 because the statute did not require an interest provision in a costs agreement and the bill of costs contained a sufficient statement that interest was claimed pursuant to s 190 at the prescribed rates. Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 did not prevent an award of interest from 1 January 2009 on the s 190 interest, and such an award was appropriate to compensate the plaintiffs for delay in payment of the interest recognised in the certificate. The plaintiffs were largely successful on the motion, but the form in which the claim was brought justified limiting costs to 90 per cent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Costs and Interest Proceeding / Hearing of Notice of Motion Concerning Interest and Costs Following Registration of a Costs Assessor's Certificate
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs against the second defendant in the sum of $37,528.84, with the second defendant to pay 90 per cent of the plaintiffs' costs of the notice of motion.
Legal Topics
['interest on Outstanding Legal Costs' 'costs Assessment Certificate' 'registration of Certificate as Judgment' 'interest Up to Judgment' 'costs of Notice of Motion']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'legal Profession'] ['interest on Outstanding Legal Costs' 'costs Assessment Certificate' 'registration of Certificate as Judgment' 'interest Up to Judgment' 'costs of Notice of Motion']

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 and Interest Proceeding / Hearing of Notice of Motion Concerning Interest and Costs Following Registration of a Costs Assessor's Certificate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to interest on unpaid legal costs under s 190(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1987 for the period from 21 November 2003 to 29 October 2008.' 'Whether s 190(1) required a provision for interest in a costs agreement.' 'Whether the bill of costs contained a statement sufficient to satisfy s 190(2) of the Legal Profession Act 1987.' 'Whether interest under s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 could be awarded on the s 190(1) interest for the period after 2008.' 'Whether the plaintiffs should recover costs of the notice of motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs satisfied s 190(1) and s 190(2) of the Legal Profession Act 1987 because the statute did not require an interest provision in a costs agreement and the bill of costs contained a sufficient statement that interest was claimed pursuant to s 190 at the prescribed rates. Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 did not prevent an award of interest from 1 January 2009 on the s 190 interest, and such an award was appropriate to compensate the plaintiffs for delay in payment of the interest recognised in the certificate. The plaintiffs were largely successful on the motion, but the form in which the claim was brought justified limiting costs to 90 per cent.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs against the second defendant in the sum of $37,528.84, with the second defendant to pay 90 per cent of the plaintiffs' costs of the notice of motion.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiffs against the second defendant in the sum of $37,528.84.' "The second defendant pay 90 per cent of the plaintiffs' costs of the notice of motion."]