Kioussis & Anor v M D Nikolaidis & Co & Anor [2001] NSWSC 353

Kioussis & Anor v M D Nikolaidis & Co & Anor [2001] NSWSC 353

The Summons was dismissed because the plaintiffs chose the wrong avenue of challenge: s 208L concerns a decision as to a matter of law and did not provide a direct means to challenge the costs assessor's determination, for which review under Subdivision 4A was the primary avenue. In any event, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any error of law that would justify disturbing the determination, and discretionary relief would not have been granted where an effective review process had deliberately not been used.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S 208 L of the Legal Profession Act 1987 Concerning a Costs Assessor's Determination / Amended Summons Seeking to Set Aside the Costs Assessor's Determination and Refer the Bills of Costs to a Master for Re Determination
Outcome
Summons dismissed; plaintiffs ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['costs Assessment' "review of Costs Assessor's Determination" 'appeal on a Matter of Law' 'jurisdiction Under S 208 L' 'distinction Between Decision and Determination']
['legal Profession' 'costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs Assessment' "review of Costs Assessor's Determination" 'appeal on a Matter of Law' 'jurisdiction Under S 208 L' 'distinction Between Decision and Determination']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under S 208 L of the Legal Profession Act 1987 Concerning a Costs Assessor's Determination / Amended Summons Seeking to Set Aside the Costs Assessor's Determination and Refer the Bills of Costs to a Master for Re Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether s 208L of the Legal Profession Act 1987 provided an avenue to challenge the costs assessor's Certificate of Determination." 'Whether the plaintiffs should have pursued review under Subdivision 4A or leave to appeal under s 208M rather than a direct appeal under s 208L.' 'Whether the plaintiffs demonstrated any error of law justifying disturbance of the determination.' 'Whether relief under s 208L (2) should be granted as a matter of discretion.' "How s 208A (2) restricts a costs assessor's power to disallow or reduce costs to disputed costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Summons was dismissed because the plaintiffs chose the wrong avenue of challenge: s 208L concerns a decision as to a matter of law and did not provide a direct means to challenge the costs assessor's determination, for which review under Subdivision 4A was the primary avenue. In any event, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any error of law that would justify disturbing the determination, and discretionary relief would not have been granted where an effective review process had deliberately not been used.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; plaintiffs ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Orders

  • ['The Summons is dismissed.' 'The plaintiffs are to pay the costs of the proceedings.']