King v Muriniti [2018] NSWCA 98

King v Muriniti [2018] NSWCA 98

The Court held that s 91 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) did not bar reliance on the findings in the principal judgment when exercising the s 99 jurisdiction. The findings that the fraud and conspiracy allegations were unsupported by evidence, together with the manner in which the proceedings were conducted, established that Mr Muriniti was responsible for costs incurred by serious incompetence and serious neglect. Section 99(2)(c) authorised an order that he indemnify Mr and Mrs King for their costs payable to their lawyers, limited to the amount payable by Ms Young under the original costs orders, and he should also pay the costs of the motions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Costs Application for Personal Costs Orders Against Solicitor / Court of Appeal Notices of Motion Filed After Dismissal of Four Proceedings Brought by Margo Young
Outcome
Notices of motion granted; personal costs orders made against Leonardo Carlo Muriniti.
Legal Topics
['personal Costs Orders Against Lawyers' 'non Party Costs Orders' 'serious Incompetence or Neglect by Legal Practitioner' 'jurisdiction Under Civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw), S 99' 'admissibility and Use of Earlier Findings Under Evidence Act 1995 (nsw), S 91' 'unnecessary Costs']
['costs' 'evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['personal Costs Orders Against Lawyers' 'non Party Costs Orders' 'serious Incompetence or Neglect by Legal Practitioner' 'jurisdiction Under Civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw), S 99' 'admissibility and Use of Earlier Findings Under Evidence Act 1995 (nsw), S 91' 'unnecessary 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

Costs Application for Personal Costs Orders Against Solicitor / Court of Appeal Notices of Motion Filed After Dismissal of Four Proceedings Brought by Margo Young

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court could rely on findings made in the principal proceedings when determining whether to order costs against the solicitor.' "Whether the solicitor's conduct constituted serious incompetence or serious neglect warranting an order under Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 99." 'Whether s 99(2)(c) permits an order indemnifying the applicants for contractual liabilities to their own lawyers, not only court-ordered costs.' 'What form and extent of costs order should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that s 91 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) did not bar reliance on the findings in the principal judgment when exercising the s 99 jurisdiction. The findings that the fraud and conspiracy allegations were unsupported by evidence, together with the manner in which the proceedings were conducted, established that Mr Muriniti was responsible for costs incurred by serious incompetence and serious neglect. Section 99(2)(c) authorised an order that he indemnify Mr and Mrs King for their costs payable to their lawyers, limited to the amount payable by Ms Young under the original costs orders, and he should also pay the costs of the motions.

Court Disposition

Notices of motion granted; personal costs orders made against Leonardo Carlo Muriniti.

Orders

  • ['Order that Leonardo Carlo Muriniti indemnify Brendan King and Kristina King against the costs payable by them on account of legal fees and disbursements in relation to the proceedings brought against them in this Court by Margo Young, limited to the amount payable by Ms Young pursuant to the costs orders made by...