Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (No 4) [2017] FCA 456

Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (No 4) [2017] FCA 456

The Solicitors, despite being repeatedly warned and lacking any proper evidential foundation, continued to maintain and prosecute serious allegations of conspiracy which amounted to unreasonable conduct by legal practitioners and a dereliction of their duties to the court. This conduct justified making a joint and several indemnity costs order against the Solicitors personally in favour of the respondents.

Parties
Applicant: Margo Young; First Respondent: Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Stephen John Perrens
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Third Party Costs Order / Determination of Special (third Party) Costs Application Following Dismissal of Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
Application for third party costs order against the Solicitors granted on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Third Party Costs Orders, Indemnity Costs, Allegation of Conspiracy by Solicitor, Professional Obligations of Solicitors
Civil Procedure Costs Legal Profession Third Party Costs Orders Indemnity Costs Allegation of Conspiracy by Solicitor Professional Obligations 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 32 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margo Young

Applicant

Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Stephen John Perrens

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Third Party Costs Order / Determination of Special (third Party) Costs Application Following Dismissal of Extension of Time to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether personal costs orders should be made against solicitors for unreasonable conduct in advancing allegations of conspiracy without a reasonable factual foundation
  2. 2 Whether there was any proper basis for the conspiracy allegations underlying the failed application for extension of time to appeal
  3. 3 Admissibility of findings in previous judgment against non-parties (s 91(1) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth))

Ratio Decidendi

The Solicitors, despite being repeatedly warned and lacking any proper evidential foundation, continued to maintain and prosecute serious allegations of conspiracy which amounted to unreasonable conduct by legal practitioners and a dereliction of their duties to the court. This conduct justified making a joint and several indemnity costs order against the Solicitors personally in favour of the respondents.

Court Disposition

Application for third party costs order against the Solicitors granted on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • Leonardo Carlo Muriniti and Robert Duane Newell jointly and severally to pay the costs of the respondents of and incidental to the application for extension of time filed by the applicant on 9 June 2016, including the costs of the interlocutory application filed on 21 November 2016, on an indemnity basis.
  • Liberty to the respondents to apply by 4:15 pm on the date of the order to extend the costs order to 'L C Muriniti & Associates', in the event it is a legal entity.