Steirn v Spanko Soulos Legal Services Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1095

Steirn v Spanko Soulos Legal Services Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1095

Responsibility for the costs thrown away by the adjournment was attributed to Mr Nicopoulos, due to his briefing of Mr Santisi in circumstances where there was a clear basis for objection under Bar Rule 87, and failure to act promptly in response to the emerging conflict. The adjournment would not have occurred but for these actions. The usual rule that the party, not their legal representative, should bear such costs was applied. Spanko was also awarded a Suitor's Fund certificate, if eligible, on account of being ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Supreme Court Civil Appeal / Post Appeal, Costs/order Clarification
Outcome
Orders varied; costs and Suitor's Fund certificate directed as set out.
Legal Topics
['costs of Adjournment' 'ethical Duties of Counsel' 'variation of Orders' "suitor's Fund Certificates"]
['civil Procedure'] ['costs of Adjournment' 'ethical Duties of Counsel' 'variation of Orders' "suitor's Fund Certificates"]

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

Supreme Court Civil Appeal / Post Appeal, Costs/order Clarification

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Who should bear the costs thrown away by the adjournment of 28 July 2009?' "Whether there was proper communication and conduct regarding counsel's potential conflict of interest under Bar Rule 87(a) and (c)" "Whether Spanko is entitled to a Suitor's Fund certificate"]

Ratio Decidendi

Responsibility for the costs thrown away by the adjournment was attributed to Mr Nicopoulos, due to his briefing of Mr Santisi in circumstances where there was a clear basis for objection under Bar Rule 87, and failure to act promptly in response to the emerging conflict. The adjournment would not have occurred but for these actions. The usual rule that the party, not their legal representative, should bear such costs was applied. Spanko was also awarded a Suitor's Fund certificate, if eligible, on account of being ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the appeal.

Court Disposition

Orders varied; costs and Suitor's Fund certificate directed as set out.

Orders

  • ["The order made in the December 2009 judgment is varied to provide: 'For the reasons given, I make the orders sought by the plaintiff namely, that the appeal be upheld, the judgment be set aside and that the matter, including the Amended Third Party Notice, be remitted to the Local Court, for determination...