Craig v Johnson [2021] NSWSC 90

Craig v Johnson [2021] NSWSC 90

It was not established that the respondent solicitors actually knew or ought reasonably to have known of the futility of the applicants' appeal from Lonergan J's decision, nor that they had a duty to inform the applicants or the Court; consequently, the costs incurred were not unreasonable and the appeal must be dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Loretta Kistmah Craig; Applicant: Vincent Desmond Craig; Applicant: D & L Craig and Associates Pty Ltd; Applicant: DLC Properties Pty Ltd; Applicant: DLCF Pty Ltd; Respondent: Anthony Francis Johnson; Respondent: JWS Consulting Group Pty Ltd; Respondent: Jonathan McCartney Cheyne; Respondent: Richard Gordon Lilly; Respondent: Byron Wolton Koster; Respondent: Jeremy Charles Davis; Respondent: James Rozsa; Respondent: Samuel Francis Johnson; Respondent: Andrew Christie Williams; Respondent: Peter Smith; Respondent: John Storrie Keeves; Respondent: James Colin Marshall; Respondent: James Hunwick; Respondent: Kevin Lynch; Respondent: Kate Fitzgerald; Respondent: David Hudson Proudman; Respondent: Paul Geoffrey Turner; Respondent: Gordon Radford; Respondent: Aldo Nicotra; Respondent: Damian Thomas Reichel; Respondent: Peter James Rose; Respondent: Rohan Scott Madders; Respondent: Shelley Denise Hemmings; Respondent: Robert Wyld; Respondent: Craig Wappett; Respondent: Peter Damian Slattery; Respondent: Richard Arthur Gelski; Respondent: Michael Dunlaney; Respondent: Roxanne Kylie Smith; Respondent: Ruveni Kelleher; Respondent: Prashanth Kainthaje; Respondent: David Colenso; Respondent: Marko Anthony Komadina; Respondent: Matthew John Allchurch; Respondent: Austin Benjamin Bell; Respondent: John David Powell; Respondent: Sarang Katdare; Respondent: Michele Laidlaw; Respondent: Christine Lynne Ecob; Respondent: Amanda Seaton; Respondent: Ivor Kaplan; Respondent: Anthony Groom; Respondent: John Graham Kench; Respondent: Antonietta Vozzo; Respondent: Karina Anita Marcar; Respondent: Jee-Soen Lee; Respondent: Paul Andrew Reidy; Respondent: Benjamin William Charles Renfrey; Respondent: Robert Guy Johnston; Respondent: Janet Anne Dransfield; Respondent: Cameron Alan Jorss; Respondent: Jane Trethewey; Respondent: Mark Geoffery O'Brien; Respondent: Joanne Staugas; Respondent: Timothy Peter Bowley; Respondent: Michael John Bywell; Respondent: Richard Grant McMullan; Respondent: Rick Malone; Respondent: Peter John Francis Van Den Dugen; Respondent: Paul Victor Svilans; Respondent: Christopher John Connor
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Motion for Leave to Appeal and Appeal / Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal and on Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Professional Negligence, Subpoena, Legal Professional Privilege, Duties of Solicitors
Civil Procedure Costs Assessment Professional Negligence Subpoena Legal Professional Privilege Duties of Solicitors

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Loretta Kistmah Craig

Applicant

Vincent Desmond Craig

Applicant

D & L Craig and Associates Pty Ltd

Applicant

DLC Properties Pty Ltd

Applicant

DLCF Pty Ltd

Applicant

Anthony Francis Johnson

Respondent

JWS Consulting Group Pty Ltd

Respondent

Jonathan McCartney Cheyne

Respondent

Richard Gordon Lilly

Respondent

Byron Wolton Koster

Respondent

Jeremy Charles Davis

Respondent

James Rozsa

Respondent

Samuel Francis Johnson

Respondent

Andrew Christie Williams

Respondent

Peter Smith

Respondent

John Storrie Keeves

Respondent

James Colin Marshall

Respondent

James Hunwick

Respondent

Kevin Lynch

Respondent

Kate Fitzgerald

Respondent

David Hudson Proudman

Respondent

Paul Geoffrey Turner

Respondent

Gordon Radford

Respondent

Aldo Nicotra

Respondent

Damian Thomas Reichel

Respondent

Peter James Rose

Respondent

Rohan Scott Madders

Respondent

Shelley Denise Hemmings

Respondent

Robert Wyld

Respondent

Craig Wappett

Respondent

Peter Damian Slattery

Respondent

Richard Arthur Gelski

Respondent

Michael Dunlaney

Respondent

Roxanne Kylie Smith

Respondent

Ruveni Kelleher

Respondent

Prashanth Kainthaje

Respondent

David Colenso

Respondent

Marko Anthony Komadina

Respondent

Matthew John Allchurch

Respondent

Austin Benjamin Bell

Respondent

John David Powell

Respondent

Sarang Katdare

Respondent

Michele Laidlaw

Respondent

Christine Lynne Ecob

Respondent

Amanda Seaton

Respondent

Ivor Kaplan

Respondent

Anthony Groom

Respondent

John Graham Kench

Respondent

Antonietta Vozzo

Respondent

Karina Anita Marcar

Respondent

Jee-Soen Lee

Respondent

Paul Andrew Reidy

Respondent

Benjamin William Charles Renfrey

Respondent

Robert Guy Johnston

Respondent

Janet Anne Dransfield

Respondent

Cameron Alan Jorss

Respondent

Jane Trethewey

Respondent

Mark Geoffery O'Brien

Respondent

Joanne Staugas

Respondent

Timothy Peter Bowley

Respondent

Michael John Bywell

Respondent

Richard Grant McMullan

Respondent

Rick Malone

Respondent

Peter John Francis Van Den Dugen

Respondent

Paul Victor Svilans

Respondent

Christopher John Connor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion for Leave to Appeal and Appeal / Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal and on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs incurred by respondent solicitors were reasonable in light of alleged knowledge of futility of appeal
  2. 2 Whether respondent solicitors had a responsibility to alert applicants or the court to the alleged futility of an appeal due to lack of subpoenaed documents
  3. 3 Scope of review in costs assessment and appeal from review panel

Ratio Decidendi

It was not established that the respondent solicitors actually knew or ought reasonably to have known of the futility of the applicants' appeal from Lonergan J's decision, nor that they had a duty to inform the applicants or the Court; consequently, the costs incurred were not unreasonable and the appeal must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted.
  • Appeal is dismissed.