Homsi v Pasquale (No. 2) [2018] NSWDC 276

Homsi v Pasquale (No. 2) [2018] NSWDC 276

The court found that the conduct attributed to the former solicitor did not warrant a personal costs order under s 99 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), as the new solicitors, upon receiving the file, had sufficient time and information to assess and make decisions about the case. Further, none of the alleged particulars individually or collectively justified the exceptional step of a practitioner costs order, and mere pursuit of a trivial or unsuccessful claim is not sufficient. The notice of motion was therefore dismissed.

Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Souraya Homsi; Defendant: Felli Pasquale; Respondent: Jason Di Michiel
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Costs Application After Previous Judgment
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed; costs reserved with liberty to apply.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Personal Injury Litigation, Costs Against Legal Practitioners
Civil Procedure Costs Orders Personal Injury Litigation Costs Against Legal Practitioners

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Souraya Homsi

Plaintiff/applicant

Felli Pasquale

Defendant

Jason Di Michiel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Costs Application After Previous Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a personal costs order should be made against the plaintiff's former solicitor under s 99 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the solicitor caused unnecessary or improperly incurred costs
  3. 3 Whether the case brought had reasonable prospects of success for purposes of practitioner liability

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the conduct attributed to the former solicitor did not warrant a personal costs order under s 99 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), as the new solicitors, upon receiving the file, had sufficient time and information to assess and make decisions about the case. Further, none of the alleged particulars individually or collectively justified the exceptional step of a practitioner costs order, and mere pursuit of a trivial or unsuccessful claim is not sufficient. The notice of motion was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed; costs reserved with liberty to apply.

Orders

  • Notice of motion filed on 3 April 2018 dismissed.
  • Costs reserved, with liberty to apply.