Valassis v Bernard [2001] NSWSC 316

The plaintiff did receive the revised bill of costs and had an opportunity to object pursuant to the regulations; in any event, his comprehensive objections to the earlier bills addressed the subject matter of the revised bill; no substantial injustice was established and leave to appeal should not be granted under s 208M of the Legal Profession Act 1987.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 12 March 2001
Procedural Posture: Application for Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Leave to Appeal From Costs Assessor's Determination
Outcome: Leave to appeal refused; summons dismissed; order for costs against the plaintiff.
Legal Topics: ['leave to Appeal' 'assessment of Costs' 'legal Profession Act 1987 S 208 M' 'costs Assessor Procedures']

['civil Procedure'] ['leave to Appeal' 'assessment of Costs' 'legal Profession Act 1987 S 208 M' 'costs Assessor Procedures']

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

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Leave to Appeal From Costs Assessor's Determination

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether the plaintiff received the revised bill of costs' 'Whether substantial injustice would result if leave to appeal were refused' 'Appropriate test for granting leave under s 208M Legal Profession Act 1987']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; summons dismissed; order for costs against the plaintiff.

Orders

['Leave to appeal refused' 'Summons dismissed' "Plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs" 'Extension of time for filing granted']