Arnott v Glissan [2013] NSWCA 316

Arnott v Glissan [2013] NSWCA 316

The only sensible construction of Mrs Arnott signing the Costs Agreement as one of 'the Clients' and returning it to Mr Glissan was that she accepted personal responsibility for costs properly payable to Mr Glissan for the work or appearances on behalf of Helitours described in the Costs Agreement. The costs assessor therefore erred in concluding that she had no personal obligation for the 23 August 2011 bill, and Truss DCJ made no error in so concluding. There was also no evidentiary basis, including no transcript, to find a denial of procedural fairness. The application was dismissed with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review Under Supreme Court Act 1970, S 69 of a District Court Decision Concerning a Legal Costs Assessment Appeal / Application Before the NSW Court of Appeal
Outcome
The application is dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['construction of Costs Agreement' 'costs Assessment' 'third Party Payer Liability' 'appeal on a Matter of Law' 'procedural Fairness']
['legal Profession' 'costs' 'judicial Review' 'civil Procedure'] ['construction of Costs Agreement' 'costs Assessment' 'third Party Payer Liability' 'appeal on a Matter of Law' 'procedural Fairness']

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 Under Supreme Court Act 1970, S 69 of a District Court Decision Concerning a Legal Costs Assessment Appeal / Application Before the NSW Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the District Court erred in concluding that the costs assessor made an error of law in construing the Costs Agreement.' 'Whether Mrs Arnott undertook personal liability for costs payable under the Costs Agreement by signing it and returning it to Mr Glissan.' 'Whether the essential condition in the Costs Agreement imposed an obligation on Mrs Arnott to pay outstanding invoices dated 27 July 2010 and 17 December 2010.' 'Whether there was a denial of procedural fairness in the District Court proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The only sensible construction of Mrs Arnott signing the Costs Agreement as one of 'the Clients' and returning it to Mr Glissan was that she accepted personal responsibility for costs properly payable to Mr Glissan for the work or appearances on behalf of Helitours described in the Costs Agreement. The costs assessor therefore erred in concluding that she had no personal obligation for the 23 August 2011 bill, and Truss DCJ made no error in so concluding. There was also no evidentiary basis, including no transcript, to find a denial of procedural fairness. The application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

The application is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed with costs.']