Ferguson v Singler (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 891

Ferguson v Singler (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 891

The certificate of the costs review panel was set aside because relevant documents were before the panel without Mr Ferguson's knowledge, denying him procedural fairness. The Court was satisfied that the denial caused practical injustice because, had Mr Ferguson known of the documents, he could have made submissions about the validity or recoverability of lawyer/client fees that could reasonably have led the panel to a different result on party/party costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review Pursuant to S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) / Principal Judgment on Amended Summons Seeking to Quash a Costs Review Panel Certificate
Outcome
Application for judicial review allowed; costs review panel certificate set aside and matter remitted; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['costs Assessment' 'costs Review Panel' 'procedural Fairness' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'jurisdictional Error' 'party/party Costs']
['administrative Law' 'legal Costs' 'legal Profession Regulation' 'judicial Review'] ['costs Assessment' 'costs Review Panel' 'procedural Fairness' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'jurisdictional Error' 'party/party Costs']

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

Application for Judicial Review Pursuant to S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) / Principal Judgment on Amended Summons Seeking to Quash a Costs Review Panel Certificate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the availability of a statutory appeal under s 384 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) should lead the Court to decline judicial review relief.' 'Whether the costs review panel denied procedural fairness by having before it documents of which Mr Ferguson was unaware.' 'Whether any denial of procedural fairness caused practical injustice.' 'Whether the costs review panel misconstrued its function or committed jurisdictional error by not giving detailed reasons when the two panellists could not agree.']

Ratio Decidendi

The certificate of the costs review panel was set aside because relevant documents were before the panel without Mr Ferguson's knowledge, denying him procedural fairness. The Court was satisfied that the denial caused practical injustice because, had Mr Ferguson known of the documents, he could have made submissions about the validity or recoverability of lawyer/client fees that could reasonably have led the panel to a different result on party/party costs.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review allowed; costs review panel certificate set aside and matter remitted; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The certificate of the costs review panel of 12 June 2013 in costs review 2012/148107 is set aside.' 'The matter is remitted to a costs review panel to be determined in accordance with law.' 'Costs are reserved.' 'The parties have liberty to approach my Associate within two weeks of today to set a mutually...