Legal Services Commissioner v Nikolaidis [2004] NSWADT 195

Legal Services Commissioner v Nikolaidis [2004] NSWADT 195

Mr Hardman's report was inadmissible because the Costs Review Panel's determination of the fair and reasonable costs was binding on the Practitioner, so the Practitioner could not use expert evidence in the Tribunal to seek a fresh determination of those costs; in any event, the report was based on assumptions and contained opinions on law and fact that made it of no assistance as expert evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Professional Misconduct Disciplinary Proceedings Against a Solicitor / Preliminary Matter on Admissibility of Expert Evidence During the Hearing
Outcome
The Tribunal declined to admit Mr Hardman's report into evidence and stood the further hearing over to a date to be fixed.
Legal Topics
['professional Misconduct' "solicitors' Costs" 'costs Assessment' 'expert Evidence Admissibility' 'binding Effect of Costs Review Panel Determination']
['legal Profession' 'professional Discipline' 'evidence'] ['professional Misconduct' "solicitors' Costs" 'costs Assessment' 'expert Evidence Admissibility' 'binding Effect of Costs Review Panel Determination']

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

Professional Misconduct Disciplinary Proceedings Against a Solicitor / Preliminary Matter on Admissibility of Expert Evidence During the Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the report of costs expert Mr Kerry Hardman was admissible in evidence.' 'Whether the Practitioner could introduce expert evidence to obtain a fresh determination of fair and reasonable costs after the Costs Review Panel had determined those costs.' "Whether the assumptions and content of Mr Hardman's report made it of value as expert evidence."]

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Hardman's report was inadmissible because the Costs Review Panel's determination of the fair and reasonable costs was binding on the Practitioner, so the Practitioner could not use expert evidence in the Tribunal to seek a fresh determination of those costs; in any event, the report was based on assumptions and contained opinions on law and fact that made it of no assistance as expert evidence.

Court Disposition

The Tribunal declined to admit Mr Hardman's report into evidence and stood the further hearing over to a date to be fixed.

Orders

  • ['The Tribunal declines to admit into evidence the report of Mr Hardman.' 'The further hearing of this matter is stood over to a date to be fixed.']