Ljiljana Coshott v Stephen Michael Barry [2017] NSWSC 1220

Ljiljana Coshott v Stephen Michael Barry [2017] NSWSC 1220

The applicant was not entitled to judicial review relief because the costs assessor did not interpret or construe the Court of Appeal's costs orders, but adopted their plain terms and assessed only the costs of proceeding No 2014/217333. His division by three of costs common to all three Court of Appeal proceedings was a permissible assessment technique within jurisdiction. In any event, relief would have been refused in the Court's discretion because the applicant had available statutory review and appeal avenues under the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW), and the unresolved 2016 assessment was expected to address the remaining two-thirds of common costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Pursuant to S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) of a Costs Assessor's Determination / Hearing of Further Amended Summons
Outcome
The further amended summons was dismissed. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents. No costs order was made for the third and fourth respondents because they filed submitting appearances.
Legal Topics
['costs Assessment' 'jurisdiction of Costs Assessor' 'construction of Court Orders' 'discretion to Refuse Prerogative Relief' 'alternative Statutory Review and Appeal Procedures']
['costs' 'administrative Law' 'judicial Review' 'legal Profession'] ['costs Assessment' 'jurisdiction of Costs Assessor' 'construction of Court Orders' 'discretion to Refuse Prerogative Relief' 'alternative Statutory Review and Appeal Procedures']

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

Judicial Review Pursuant to S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) of a Costs Assessor's Determination / Hearing of Further Amended Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the costs assessor exceeded jurisdiction by purporting to construe the Court of Appeal's costs orders of 28 August 2015 and by apportioning costs common to three proceedings by three in the 2015 assessment." "Whether relief under the further amended summons should be refused in the Court's discretion because statutory review or appeal procedures were available." 'Whether the pending 2016 assessment under the other Court of Appeal costs order made the claimed apportionment issue academic.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was not entitled to judicial review relief because the costs assessor did not interpret or construe the Court of Appeal's costs orders, but adopted their plain terms and assessed only the costs of proceeding No 2014/217333. His division by three of costs common to all three Court of Appeal proceedings was a permissible assessment technique within jurisdiction. In any event, relief would have been refused in the Court's discretion because the applicant had available statutory review and appeal avenues under the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW), and the unresolved 2016 assessment was expected to address the remaining two-thirds of common costs.

Court Disposition

The further amended summons was dismissed. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents. No costs order was made for the third and fourth respondents because they filed submitting appearances.

Orders

  • ['The further amended summons is dismissed.' 'The applicant is to pay the costs of the first and second respondents.' 'The first and second respondents are to provide to my associate by 5.00 pm on Friday, 8 September 2017 written submissions of no more than 5 pages in support of an application that their costs be on...