Kalloghlian v Mitry Lawyers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1071

Kalloghlian v Mitry Lawyers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1071

Applicant failed to establish, to the required standard, that the respondents' conduct amounted to serious neglect, incompetence or misconduct nor that any such conduct caused wasted or unnecessary costs; involvement and instructions of the applicant and reasonable explanations for delays preclude a personal costs order under s 99 or the Court's inherent jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Personal Costs Orders / Post Settlement; Application for Personal Costs Order Against Former Solicitors
Outcome
Applicant's motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['personal Costs Orders Against Lawyers' 'statutory and Inherent Jurisdiction' 'wasted Costs' 'section 99 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw)' 'party/party and Solicitor/client Costs']
['costs' 'legal Profession' 'civil Procedure'] ['personal Costs Orders Against Lawyers' 'statutory and Inherent Jurisdiction' 'wasted Costs' 'section 99 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw)' 'party/party and Solicitor/client Costs']

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

Notice of Motion for Personal Costs Orders / Post Settlement; Application for Personal Costs Order Against Former Solicitors

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether personal costs order should be made against the respondents (solicitors) under s 99 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and/or inherent jurisdiction' 'Whether conduct by the respondents caused costs to be improperly or unreasonably incurred or incurred by serious neglect, incompetence, or misconduct']

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to establish, to the required standard, that the respondents' conduct amounted to serious neglect, incompetence or misconduct nor that any such conduct caused wasted or unnecessary costs; involvement and instructions of the applicant and reasonable explanations for delays preclude a personal costs order under s 99 or the Court's inherent jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Applicant's motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Applicant's motion dismissed." "Applicant to pay the respondents' costs as agreed or assessed." 'Grant leave to any party to approach the Associate by email within 7 days should an alternative costs order be sought, with associated timelines for evidence and submissions.']