Svir v Yisrael [2002] NSWSC 944

Svir v Yisrael [2002] NSWSC 944

Leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiff did not demonstrate any basis to disturb the panel’s determination. The estoppel argument was not made out, and the asserted natural justice issue concerning a detailed itemised bill had not been ventilated before the Costs Assessor; the plaintiff had available courses such as withdrawing the memorandum of fees or applying to rely on a fresh bill but chose instead to proceed on the memorandum of fees and estoppel arguments. The onus for leave was not discharged.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From a Costs Assessment Review Panel Determination / Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; Summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs Assessment' 'review Panel Determination' 'leave to Appeal' 'estoppel' 'natural Justice']
['costs' 'legal Profession'] ['costs Assessment' 'review Panel Determination' 'leave to Appeal' 'estoppel' 'natural Justice']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal From a Costs Assessment Review Panel Determination / Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s 208M of the Legal Profession Act 1987 from the Costs Assessment Review Panel determination.' 'Whether estoppel provided a basis to disturb the costs determination.' 'Whether the plaintiff was denied natural justice by not being afforded an opportunity to prepare and present an itemised bill of costs in assessable form.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiff did not demonstrate any basis to disturb the panel’s determination. The estoppel argument was not made out, and the asserted natural justice issue concerning a detailed itemised bill had not been ventilated before the Costs Assessor; the plaintiff had available courses such as withdrawing the memorandum of fees or applying to rely on a fresh bill but chose instead to proceed on the memorandum of fees and estoppel arguments. The onus for leave was not discharged.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; Summons dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The Summons is dismissed.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the Summons, assessed by consent in the sum of $50." 'The application for leave is refused.']