Adamson v Miller [2005] NSWSC 971

Adamson v Miller [2005] NSWSC 971

The summons was dismissed because the plaintiff's grounds did not establish an appealable error under the narrow scope of s208L. The natural justice complaint was not available under s208L, the costs assessor's findings that the defendant did not agree to pay the plaintiff's legal costs and that any agreement for payment was with Peter Miller and Adelene Liu could not be challenged under s208L, and Adams v London Improved Motor Coach Buildings Ltd was distinguishable on the facts. In any event, the document was not validly executed by the defendant as a deed, the six-year limitation period had expired, and the costs assessment application was not an action in a court within the limitation...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Costs Assessor / Summons Seeking Relief Pursuant to S208 L of the Legal Profession Act 1987
Outcome
The summons is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal From Costs Assessor' 'natural Justice' 'costs Agreement' 'retainer' 'agency' 'execution of Deed' 'limitation Period']
['costs' 'legal Profession' 'limitation of Actions'] ['appeal From Costs Assessor' 'natural Justice' 'costs Agreement' 'retainer' 'agency' 'execution of Deed' 'limitation Period']

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

Appeal From Costs Assessor / Summons Seeking Relief Pursuant to S208 L of the Legal Profession Act 1987

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a denial of natural justice was a ground of appeal available under s208L of the Legal Profession Act 1987.' 'Whether the costs assessor erred in finding that the defendant had no liability under the document relied on as a costs agreement.' 'Whether the costs assessor erred in distinguishing Adams v London Improved Motor Coach Buildings Ltd [1921] 1 KB 495.' 'Whether any claim by the plaintiff was statute barred because the relevant limitation period had expired.' 'Whether the application for assessment was the bringing of an action in a court within the limitation period.']

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was dismissed because the plaintiff's grounds did not establish an appealable error under the narrow scope of s208L. The natural justice complaint was not available under s208L, the costs assessor's findings that the defendant did not agree to pay the plaintiff's legal costs and that any agreement for payment was with Peter Miller and Adelene Liu could not be challenged under s208L, and Adams v London Improved Motor Coach Buildings Ltd was distinguishable on the facts. In any event, the document was not validly executed by the defendant as a deed, the six-year limitation period had expired, and the costs assessment application was not an action in a court within the limitation...

Court Disposition

The summons is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The summons is dismissed.' 'The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the summons.' 'The exhibits may be returned.']