Montgomery v Egan Simpson Solicitors [2005] NSWSC 886

Montgomery v Egan Simpson Solicitors [2005] NSWSC 886

Leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any error of principle or substantial injustice in the decisions of the Costs Assessor and Review Panel. Though the plaintiff did not receive a reply from the defendant to the Costs Assessor, all parties had a fair opportunity to be heard, and...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Plaintiff: Brett Charles Montgomery; Plaintiff: Leonie Gai Montgomery; Defendant: Jeffrey Francis Egan; Defendant: Margaret Anne Simpson t/as Egan Simpson Solicitors
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal From Costs Assessor and Review Panel Decision / Decision on Leave to Appeal and Extension of Time
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; extension of time granted; summons dismissed; plaintiffs to pay defendant’s costs
Legal Topics
Appeals From Costs Assessor Decisions, Procedural Fairness, Costs Orders
Costs Assessment Legal Profession Appeals From Costs Assessor Decisions Procedural Fairness Costs Orders

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brett Charles Montgomery

Plaintiff

Leonie Gai Montgomery

Plaintiff

Jeffrey Francis Egan

Defendant

Margaret Anne Simpson t/as Egan Simpson Solicitors

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal From Costs Assessor and Review Panel Decision / Decision on Leave to Appeal and Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal from the Costs Assessor and Review Panel should be granted pursuant to s 208M of the Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether there was a denial of procedural fairness as alleged by the plaintiffs
  3. 3 Whether any error of principle or substantial injustice was demonstrated justifying leave to appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any error of principle or substantial injustice in the decisions of the Costs Assessor and Review Panel. Though the plaintiff did not receive a reply from the defendant to the Costs Assessor, all parties had a fair opportunity to be heard, and the disputed items were duly considered. There was no denial of procedural fairness, and it was open to the Costs Assessor and Review Panel to reach their conclusions.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; extension of time granted; summons dismissed; plaintiffs to pay defendant’s costs

Orders

  • An extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal is granted.
  • Leave to appeal is refused.