De Costi Seafoods (Franchises) Pty Limited and Anor v Wachtenheim and Anor (No 8) [2020] NSWDC 184

De Costi Seafoods (Franchises) Pty Limited and Anor v Wachtenheim and Anor (No 8) [2020] NSWDC 184

Ms Ashe was validly appointed as referee upon her nomination by the President of the Law Society pursuant to the court's self-executing order. The parties' consent to the referee's procedural methodology precluded termination on that ground. The evidence did not establish apprehended bias or misconduct sufficient for removal or invalidation of her appointment. The fee estimate and concerns about privilege or process did not warrant termination.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Motion—application for Removal of Referee in Referred Costs Assessment
Outcome
Application for removal of the Referee dismissed
Legal Topics
['reference to Referee' 'appointment and Removal of Referees' 'costs Assessment' 'procedure for Referees' 'apprehended Bias' 'interpretation of Court Orders']
['civil Procedure'] ['reference to Referee' 'appointment and Removal of Referees' 'costs Assessment' 'procedure for Referees' 'apprehended Bias' 'interpretation of Court Orders']

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 / Interlocutory Motion—application for Removal of Referee in Referred Costs Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Ms Ashe was validly appointed as referee under the court's order and applicable rules" 'Whether grounds existed to terminate the appointment of Ms Ashe as referee (failure to require bill of costs, excessive fee estimate, association with Lawcover, apprehended bias)']

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Ashe was validly appointed as referee upon her nomination by the President of the Law Society pursuant to the court's self-executing order. The parties' consent to the referee's procedural methodology precluded termination on that ground. The evidence did not establish apprehended bias or misconduct sufficient for removal or invalidation of her appointment. The fee estimate and concerns about privilege or process did not warrant termination.

Court Disposition

Application for removal of the Referee dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application for removal of the Referee is dismissed.' 'Costs of the application be payable by Mr Newell and Mr Muriniti.' 'The parties provide to my associate within seven days: (a) any further proposed directions to the Referee; and (b) three mutually convenient dates for the directions hearing.']