Morris v Hanley [2003] NSWSC 523

Morris v Hanley [2003] NSWSC 523

On the particulars of misconduct and correspondence relied on by the plaintiff, there was realistically no arguable case that any of the four named legal practitioners had engaged in misconduct warranting a costs order against them, so leave to file and return the proposed motion was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to File a Motion for Costs Against Legal Practitioners / Judgment on Leave Application During Argument Concerning Costs of the Proceedings
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['costs Against Legal Practitioners' 'misconduct of Solicitors and Barristers' 'leave to File Notice of Motion' 'procedural Fairness']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Against Legal Practitioners' 'misconduct of Solicitors and Barristers' 'leave to File Notice of Motion' 'procedural Fairness']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to File a Motion for Costs Against Legal Practitioners / Judgment on Leave Application During Argument Concerning Costs of the Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to file a motion seeking costs orders against four legal practitioners who had acted for the defendants.' 'Whether misconduct by the legal practitioners could be inferred from the particulars and correspondence relied on by the plaintiff.' 'Whether there was an arguable case for costs against any of the named legal practitioners.']

Ratio Decidendi

On the particulars of misconduct and correspondence relied on by the plaintiff, there was realistically no arguable case that any of the four named legal practitioners had engaged in misconduct warranting a costs order against them, so leave to file and return the proposed motion was refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to file a motion for costs against the four named legal practitioners and make it returnable before Hamilton J to be heard with the costs applications in the proceedings is refused.']