Ferella v Stomo [2017] NSWCA 268

Ferella v Stomo [2017] NSWCA 268

The summons for judicial review failed because reg 59 validly preserved the application of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) and Legal Profession Regulation 2005 (NSW) to ordered costs where the underlying proceedings commenced before 1 July 2015, so the Review Panel and District Court did not err in applying that legislation. In any event, if s 89 of the Application Act had applied, leave to appeal was required and the District Court gave proper and unchallenged reasons for refusing leave, so prerogative relief would have been refused as discretionary and futile.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Summons for Judicial Review Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) / Court of Appeal Review of District Court Orders Dismissing Appeal or Leave to Appeal From Costs Assessment Review Panel Decisions
Outcome
Summons for judicial review dismissed with costs to be paid on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
['party/party Costs Assessment' 'judicial Review' 'transitional Provisions' 'indemnity Costs' 'leave to Appeal']
['costs' 'administrative Law' 'legal Profession'] ['party/party Costs Assessment' 'judicial Review' 'transitional Provisions' 'indemnity Costs' 'leave to Appeal']

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

Summons for Judicial Review Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) / Court of Appeal Review of District Court Orders Dismissing Appeal or Leave to Appeal From Costs Assessment Review Panel Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the District Court erred in finding that the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) applied to the costs assessments and Review Panel decisions.' 'Whether reg 59 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Regulation 2015 (NSW) was invalid or inconsistent with the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) or the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW).' 'Whether leave to appeal under s 89(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW) would have been required and properly refused if that Act applied.' 'Whether the applicants identified any error of law justifying judicial review of the District Court costs orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

The summons for judicial review failed because reg 59 validly preserved the application of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) and Legal Profession Regulation 2005 (NSW) to ordered costs where the underlying proceedings commenced before 1 July 2015, so the Review Panel and District Court did not err in applying that legislation. In any event, if s 89 of the Application Act had applied, leave to appeal was required and the District Court gave proper and unchallenged reasons for refusing leave, so prerogative relief would have been refused as discretionary and futile.

Court Disposition

Summons for judicial review dismissed with costs to be paid on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • ['Order that the summons for judicial review be dismissed.' "Order that the applicants pay the respondent's costs on an indemnity basis."]