Helby v Council for the Law Society of New South Wales and anor (No. 2) [2014] NSWSC 92

Helby v Council for the Law Society of New South Wales and anor (No. 2) [2014] NSWSC 92

Because the first defendant's decisions were set aside in their entirety, the plaintiff was completely successful and there was no reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event. The first defendant's exercise of statutory power in a genuine belief that it was acting in the public interest, and the Court's criticism of aspects of the plaintiff's conduct, did not displace that result because the serious dishonesty allegations forming the basis of the suspension decision were not established. However, the first defendant did not act unreasonably in making the original decisions, testing the plaintiff's evidence, or declining the settlement offer, so indemnity costs were...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Costs / Written Submissions on Costs After Judgment Setting Aside the First Defendant's Decisions
Outcome
The first defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs on the usual basis; indemnity costs were refused; no costs order was made against the second defendant.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'indemnity Costs' 'suspension of Practising Certificate' 'appointment of Manager to Legal Practice' 'public Interest Regulatory Decision Making']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'legal Profession'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'indemnity Costs' 'suspension of Practising Certificate' 'appointment of Manager to Legal Practice' 'public Interest Regulatory Decision Making']

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

Costs / Written Submissions on Costs After Judgment Setting Aside the First Defendant's Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff, having wholly succeeded, should receive an order that costs follow the event.' "Whether the first defendant's conduct or refusal of the plaintiff's settlement offer justified indemnity costs." 'Whether any costs order should be made against the second defendant, who played no active part in the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the first defendant's decisions were set aside in their entirety, the plaintiff was completely successful and there was no reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event. The first defendant's exercise of statutory power in a genuine belief that it was acting in the public interest, and the Court's criticism of aspects of the plaintiff's conduct, did not displace that result because the serious dishonesty allegations forming the basis of the suspension decision were not established. However, the first defendant did not act unreasonably in making the original decisions, testing the plaintiff's evidence, or declining the settlement offer, so indemnity costs were...

Court Disposition

The first defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs on the usual basis; indemnity costs were refused; no costs order was made against the second defendant.

Orders

  • ["The first defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings on the usual basis, as agreed or assessed."]