Dimarti v AB Law Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 654

Dimarti v AB Law Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 654

Leave to further amend and an extension of time were refused because the plaintiffs failed to comply with explicit earlier directions and the UCPR as to timing and content of the amended summons, gave no reasonable excuse for the substantial delay, had no evidence that the criminal proceedings were connected to the dispute, had not shown notice to the Manager, Costs Assessment, and the proposed substantive case appeared hopeless because the $106,000 allegation was not pressed, there was no independent evidence of forgery, no particulars or evidence of fraud or deceit, and it was accepted that legal work had been performed while Ms XY held a practising certificate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Amend an Amended Summons and for an Extension of Time in Proceedings Concerning a Certificate of Determination of Legal Costs / Hearing of Preliminary Applications After an Amended Summons Was Filed on 29 February 2024
Outcome
Leave to amend and the application for an extension of time were refused; the amended summons was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Amend' 'extension of Time' 'appeal From Costs Panel' 'judicial Review' 'compliance With Court Orders and Rules' 'prospects of Success']
['civil Procedure' 'costs Assessment' 'legal Profession'] ['leave to Amend' 'extension of Time' 'appeal From Costs Panel' 'judicial Review' 'compliance With Court Orders and Rules' 'prospects of Success']

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

Application for Leave to Amend an Amended Summons and for an Extension of Time in Proceedings Concerning a Certificate of Determination of Legal Costs / Hearing of Preliminary Applications After an Amended Summons Was Filed on 29 February 2024

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to further amend the amended summons where the plaintiffs had not complied with earlier directions as to time and content.' 'Whether time should be extended for an appeal or judicial review of the costs panel decision.' 'Whether the proposed substantive case had sufficient merit to justify an extension of time.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to further amend and an extension of time were refused because the plaintiffs failed to comply with explicit earlier directions and the UCPR as to timing and content of the amended summons, gave no reasonable excuse for the substantial delay, had no evidence that the criminal proceedings were connected to the dispute, had not shown notice to the Manager, Costs Assessment, and the proposed substantive case appeared hopeless because the $106,000 allegation was not pressed, there was no independent evidence of forgery, no particulars or evidence of fraud or deceit, and it was accepted that legal work had been performed while Ms XY held a practising certificate.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend and the application for an extension of time were refused; the amended summons was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to amend the amended summons filed on 29 February 2024 is refused.' 'The application for an extension of time to file the amended summons, whether for the purpose of an appeal or a judicial review, is refused.' 'The amended summons filed on 29 February 2024 is dismissed.' "The plaintiffs are to pay the...