Malouf v Jazairy [2003] NSWSC 762

Malouf v Jazairy [2003] NSWSC 762

The determinations were set aside because the Costs Assessor and the Costs Review Panel misdirected themselves by addressing wrong questions, failing to address right questions, and proceeding on misconceptions about the effect of the later costs agreement and the operation of ss 208C and 208D of the Legal Profession Act 1987, amounting to error of law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Cost Assessments Appeal From Panel / Ex Parte Hearing of Supreme Court Proceedings Seeking Relief Pursuant to Ss 208 L and 208 M of the Legal Profession Act 1987 From Determinations of a Costs Review Panel
Outcome
Determinations set aside and remitted to the panel for redetermination; defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['conditional Costs Agreement' 'substituted Costs Agreement' 'unjust Costs Agreement Terms' 'costs Assessor Powers' 'costs Review Panel Error of Law']
['legal Profession' 'costs Assessment' 'contract Law'] ['conditional Costs Agreement' 'substituted Costs Agreement' 'unjust Costs Agreement Terms' 'costs Assessor Powers' 'costs Review Panel Error of Law']

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

Cost Assessments Appeal From Panel / Ex Parte Hearing of Supreme Court Proceedings Seeking Relief Pursuant to Ss 208 L and 208 M of the Legal Profession Act 1987 From Determinations of a Costs Review Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Costs Assessor and Costs Review Panel misdirected themselves in dealing with the later costs agreement signed on 19 August 1996 as against the earlier conditional costs agreement.' 'Whether the Costs Review Panel misunderstood or misapplied s 208D of the Legal Profession Act 1987 when determining that a term of the costs agreement was unjust.' 'Whether the panel determinations should be set aside and remitted for redetermination.']

Ratio Decidendi

The determinations were set aside because the Costs Assessor and the Costs Review Panel misdirected themselves by addressing wrong questions, failing to address right questions, and proceeding on misconceptions about the effect of the later costs agreement and the operation of ss 208C and 208D of the Legal Profession Act 1987, amounting to error of law.

Court Disposition

Determinations set aside and remitted to the panel for redetermination; defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Orders

  • ['The determinations be set aside and such decision be remitted to the panel.' 'The panel redetermine the applications.' 'The defendant is to pay the costs of the proceedings.' 'The Exhibits may be returned.']