Lahoud v Lahoud [2018] NSWSC 5

Lahoud v Lahoud [2018] NSWSC 5

Leave to appeal is to be granted only on grounds raising novel or significant issues of principle or clear error; mere disagreement with evaluative findings or factual determinations in a complex costs assessment does not warrant leave. The costs review panel acted within its powers by proceeding without the Baron files, given the evidence did not establish those files were essential or that their absence invalidated the review. The panel’s approach to GST, new objections, time units, and the indemnity principle was reasonable or not sufficiently erroneous to justify intervention. Relief against the Manager, Costs Assessment, was misconceived, as there was no power to order a refund of...

Parties
First Plaintiff: Victor Lahoud; Second Plaintiff: Castle Constructions Pty Ltd; Third Plaintiff: Solidare Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Joseph Lahoud; Second Defendant: Joseph Lahoud & Associates Pty Ltd; Third Defendant: Michael William Robinson; Fourth Defendant: John Bartos; Fifth Defendant: The Manager, Costs Assessment; Sixth Defendant: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Applications for Leave to Appeal (summons and Cross Summons) From Costs Assessment Review Determination / Judgment After Hearing on Applications for Leave to Appeal and Appeals
Outcome
Victor Lahoud: Leave to appeal granted on ground 1A only; appeal dismissed; all other grounds refused leave. Relief against Manager, Costs Assessment refused. Joseph Lahoud: Leave on ground 2 only; appeal dismissed; all other grounds refused leave.
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Appeals Against Costs Review Panel, Application of Indemnity Principle, Leave to Appeal, Construction of Costs Orders
Costs Civil Procedure Costs Assessment Appeals Against Costs Review Panel Application of Indemnity Principle Leave to Appeal Construction of Costs Orders

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victor Lahoud

First Plaintiff

Castle Constructions Pty Ltd

Second Plaintiff

Solidare Pty Ltd

Third Plaintiff

Joseph Lahoud

First Defendant

Joseph Lahoud & Associates Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Michael William Robinson

Third Defendant

John Bartos

Fourth Defendant

The Manager, Costs Assessment

Fifth Defendant

Attorney General

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Applications for Leave to Appeal (summons and Cross Summons) From Costs Assessment Review Determination / Judgment After Hearing on Applications for Leave to Appeal and Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted to challenge the third costs review panel’s determination
  2. 2 Whether the panel erred in proceeding without production of all documents sought (Baron files)
  3. 3 Application of the indemnity principle in costs assessment

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal is to be granted only on grounds raising novel or significant issues of principle or clear error; mere disagreement with evaluative findings or factual determinations in a complex costs assessment does not warrant leave. The costs review panel acted within its powers by proceeding without the Baron files, given the evidence did not establish those files were essential or that their absence invalidated the review. The panel’s approach to GST, new objections, time units, and the indemnity principle was reasonable or not sufficiently erroneous to justify intervention. Relief against the Manager, Costs Assessment, was misconceived, as there was no power to order a refund of...

Court Disposition

Victor Lahoud: Leave to appeal granted on ground 1A only; appeal dismissed; all other grounds refused leave. Relief against Manager, Costs Assessment refused. Joseph Lahoud: Leave on ground 2 only; appeal dismissed; all other grounds refused leave.

Orders

  • Grant leave to Victor Lahoud to appeal on ground 1A in the further amended summons; otherwise refuse leave to appeal.
  • Dismiss appeal on ground 1A.