Paul v Girgis [2013] NSWSC 1725

Paul v Girgis [2013] NSWSC 1725

An order for payment into court is appropriate for sums not subject to s 355 of the Legal Profession Act; since not all claimed costs are under assessment or within the twelve month period, payment can be ordered accordingly.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Michael Antony Paul; Second Plaintiff: Carly Jane Middleton; Defendant: Marcelle Girgis
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory
Outcome
Interlocutory orders made; payment into court ordered.
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Mortgage, Payment Into Court, Vacation of Hearing, Legal Profession Act 2004, Uniform Civil Procedure Rules

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Antony Paul

First Plaintiff

Carly Jane Middleton

Second Plaintiff

Marcelle Girgis

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant should pay funds into court pending costs assessment and proceedings finalisation
  2. 2 Whether s 355 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 restricts the payment into court
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's application for costs assessment was made in accordance with the Act

Ratio Decidendi

An order for payment into court is appropriate for sums not subject to s 355 of the Legal Profession Act; since not all claimed costs are under assessment or within the twelve month period, payment can be ordered accordingly.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders made; payment into court ordered.

Orders

  • The Defendant is to pay $120,000 from the sale proceeds of 50 Honiton Avenue, Carlingford into Court pending proceedings and costs assessment.
  • Hearing of proceedings fixed for 5 December 2013 vacated.