Piriz v AAPT Limited (No 3) [2006] NSWIRComm 117
On the evidence, Mr Biady's conduct did not amount to undue delay, misconduct, or default; the case is not a clear one for exercising the exceptional jurisdiction to order costs personally against the solicitor under r 209.
- Parties
- Applicant: Eduardo Piriz; Respondent: AAPT Limited
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 05 April 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Costs Application Under Industrial Relations Commission Rules, R 209
- Outcome
- No costs order made against solicitor; costs to be borne by client.
- Legal Topics
- Legal Practitioners, Costs Orders, Statutory Power to Order Costs Against Practitioner
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Eduardo Piriz
Applicant
AAPT Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Costs Application Under Industrial Relations Commission Rules, R 209
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether costs were wasted by undue delay or misconduct or default and whether the solicitor was responsible under r 209 of the Rules
Ratio Decidendi
On the evidence, Mr Biady's conduct did not amount to undue delay, misconduct, or default; the case is not a clear one for exercising the exceptional jurisdiction to order costs personally against the solicitor under r 209.
Court Disposition
No costs order made against solicitor; costs to be borne by client.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment