CSR LIMITED v EDDY [2008] NSWCA 83

CSR LIMITED v EDDY [2008] NSWCA 83

Although procedural fairness generally required the appellants to be given the costs agreements so they could make submissions on objections based on the indemnity principle, the agreements did not as a matter of law show that the plaintiff had no liability to his solicitors or any relevant cap reducing the assessed costs. The statement that a bill would be sent did not make liability conditional on delivery of a bill. The costs agreement also gave no support to the 6 minute unit complaint or the estimates complaint. The appellants therefore failed to demonstrate practical injustice and the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Costs Assessment and Procedural Fairness / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal From Dismissal by Malpass as J of an Appeal From a Costs Review Panel Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['costs Assessment' 'party and Party Costs' 'indemnity Principle' 'conditional Costs Agreements' 'procedural Fairness' 'client Legal Privilege' 'practical Injustice']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['costs Assessment' 'party and Party Costs' 'indemnity Principle' 'conditional Costs Agreements' 'procedural Fairness' 'client Legal Privilege' 'practical Injustice']

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

Appeal Concerning Costs Assessment and Procedural Fairness / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal From Dismissal by Malpass as J of an Appeal From a Costs Review Panel Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was procedural unfairness in the failure to provide copies of the costs agreements to the appellants.' 'The scope and operation of the indemnity principle in relation to conditional costs agreements and party and party costs assessment.' 'Whether the costs agreement supported a complaint that charges based on 6 minute units involved overcharging.' 'Whether estimates contained in the costs agreements provided a valid basis of complaint to the bill.' 'Whether client legal privilege could be claimed over the costs agreements.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although procedural fairness generally required the appellants to be given the costs agreements so they could make submissions on objections based on the indemnity principle, the agreements did not as a matter of law show that the plaintiff had no liability to his solicitors or any relevant cap reducing the assessed costs. The statement that a bill would be sent did not make liability conditional on delivery of a bill. The costs agreement also gave no support to the 6 minute unit complaint or the estimates complaint. The appellants therefore failed to demonstrate practical injustice and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']