Muriniti v King [2019] NSWCA 153

Muriniti v King [2019] NSWCA 153

The Court held that the primary judge applied the correct test under s 99 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) for making costs orders against the Lawyers, finding serious incompetence and misconduct in that they made unsupported allegations and abused the process. None of the applicant's grounds (wrong test, findings not open on evidence, bias, procedural unfairness) had merit. The application for leave to appeal was refused, and the respondents were awarded costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused. Respondents awarded costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal Against Costs Orders' 'wasted Costs Orders' 'serious Incompetence or Neglect by Solicitors' 'abuse of Process' 'bias and Recusal']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['leave to Appeal Against Costs Orders' 'wasted Costs Orders' 'serious Incompetence or Neglect by Solicitors' 'abuse of Process' 'bias and Recusal']

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 / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to appeal costs orders made by the Land and Environment Court under s 58 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW)' 'Whether the primary judge applied the correct test for an order under s 99 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)' 'Whether the costs orders were based on findings not open on the evidence' 'Whether there was bias on the part of the primary judge' 'Whether there was a denial of procedural fairness' 'Whether the primary judge erred regarding findings about evidence of conspiracy']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the primary judge applied the correct test under s 99 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) for making costs orders against the Lawyers, finding serious incompetence and misconduct in that they made unsupported allegations and abused the process. None of the applicant's grounds (wrong test, findings not open on evidence, bias, procedural unfairness) had merit. The application for leave to appeal was refused, and the respondents were awarded costs.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused. Respondents awarded costs.

Orders

  • ['Summons seeking leave to appeal filed on 24 December 2018 be dismissed.' "The Respondents' costs of the application for leave be paid by the applicants for leave."]