Pasupati v Okill [2011] NSWSC 1383

Pasupati v Okill [2011] NSWSC 1383

There was no evidence that Okill and Raymont were not liable for their own solicitors' costs; a costs agreement existed and the arrangement with PMA as a lender did not negate the liability. The costs assessor and review panel properly applied the correct principles and adequately scrutinised the costs claimed. Leave to appeal was therefore refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Review Panel Determination
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal against review panel's determination dismissed.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Principle' 'costs Assessment' 'legal Profession Act 2004']
['costs'] ['indemnity Principle' 'costs Assessment' 'legal Profession Act 2004']

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 Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Review Panel Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted concerning alleged breach of the indemnity principle in costs assessment' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted on the basis that the quantum of costs was excessive']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that Okill and Raymont were not liable for their own solicitors' costs; a costs agreement existed and the arrangement with PMA as a lender did not negate the liability. The costs assessor and review panel properly applied the correct principles and adequately scrutinised the costs claimed. Leave to appeal was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal against review panel's determination dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Mr Pasupati to pay the costs of the application of Messrs Okill and Raymont.']