Jadwan Pty Ltd v Rae & Partners (A Firm) [2023] FCAFC 182

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Against a Lump Sum Costs Determination / Full Court Application for Leave to Appeal From Jadwan Pty Ltd V Rae & Partners (a Firm) (no 7) [2022] FCA 1174

Legal Issues

1. 1 ['Whether the primary judgment on lump sum costs was attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration.' 'Whether refusal of leave to appeal would occasion substantial injustice.' 'Whether the primary judge erred by not requiring production of costs agreements or retainer agreements.' 'Whether the primary judge applied the wrong test by treating ordinary costs as indemnity costs or reversing the onus.' 'Whether the primary judge failed to consider the costs response prepared by Costs Consultant Lydia Fogl.' 'Whether the primary judge failed to consider duplication of work and charges between lawyers and counsel.' "Whether the primary judge misapplied the Federal Court scale of fees and the National Guide to Counsels' Fees." 'Whether the leave application and prospective appeal were disproportionate to what was at stake.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because none of Jadwan's prospective grounds of appeal had merit, the primary judge's lump sum costs determination was not shown to be attended with sufficient doubt, and Jadwan failed to establish that refusal of leave would occasion substantial injustice. The Court also considered the application and prospective appeal disproportionate to what was at stake.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

• ['The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.' "The applicant is to pay the first to third respondents' costs to be assessed in a lump sum, that assessment to be undertaken by a Registrar in accordance with the procedures set out in section 4 of the Costs Practice Note (GPN-COSTS)."]