David Doyle v Hall Chadwick [2011] NSWSC 895

David Doyle v Hall Chadwick [2011] NSWSC 895

Quashing the review panel's determinations did not automatically require setting aside District Court judgments as the suspension of the underlying costs assessor's determinations remained but had not ended; as Dr Doyle was unsuccessful on discrete issues, appropriate costs orders were made reflecting the parties' conduct and procedural developments; no serious misconduct or bad faith was found to justify indemnity costs or costs orders against the review panel.

Parties
Plaintiff: David Doyle; First Defendant: Hall Chadwick; Second Defendant: Robbert Fox; Third Defendant: Ian Dwyer; Fourth Defendant: Attorney General for the State of New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Paragraphs [5]-[7] of the amended summons dismissed; complex but mostly costs orders made.
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Judicial Review, Indemnity Costs, Jurisdictional Error, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Costs Assessment Judicial Review Indemnity Costs Jurisdictional Error 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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Doyle

Plaintiff

Hall Chadwick

First Defendant

Robbert Fox

Second Defendant

Ian Dwyer

Third Defendant

Attorney General for the State of New South Wales

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether District Court judgments should be set aside following quashing of review panel determinations
  2. 2 Whether restitution should be ordered for sums paid under quashed judgments
  3. 3 Appropriate allocation of costs among parties including statutory review panels and Attorney General

Ratio Decidendi

Quashing the review panel's determinations did not automatically require setting aside District Court judgments as the suspension of the underlying costs assessor's determinations remained but had not ended; as Dr Doyle was unsuccessful on discrete issues, appropriate costs orders were made reflecting the parties' conduct and procedural developments; no serious misconduct or bad faith was found to justify indemnity costs or costs orders against the review panel.

Court Disposition

Paragraphs [5]-[7] of the amended summons dismissed; complex but mostly costs orders made.

Orders

  • Paragraphs [5] to [7] of the amended summons filed 13 July 2011 are dismissed.
  • The first defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs up to and including the 14 April 2011 on a party/party basis, including his costs incurred on 25 February 2011.