Shalhoub v Johnson [2023] NSWDC 555

Shalhoub v Johnson [2023] NSWDC 555

No error of law or fact was found in the Review Panel's assessment of costs: proportionality and reasonableness were properly considered in context. Allowances for solicitors' costs, use of staff, and Senior Counsel were justified given the proceedings' complexity and conduct. The appeal was dismissed as the plaintiff failed to establish any reviewable error in the Review Panel's determinations.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal (costs Assessment) / Judgment After Hearing on Appeal From Review Panel Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; orders as to costs and further applications reserved.
Legal Topics
['costs Assessment' 'proportionality in Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'briefing of Senior Counsel' 'appeals From Review Panel' 'legal Costs – Fair and Reasonable' 'costs in Equity Division']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Assessment' 'proportionality in Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'briefing of Senior Counsel' 'appeals From Review Panel' 'legal Costs – Fair and Reasonable' 'costs in Equity Division']

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

Appeal (costs Assessment) / Judgment After Hearing on Appeal From Review Panel Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Review Panel erred in allowing costs claimed by the defendants as reasonable and proportionate under s 172 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014 (NSW)' 'Whether sufficient consideration was given to proportionality in costs assessment' 'Whether costs claimed for internal conferencing, staff seniority, and briefing of Senior Counsel were excessive or duplicative' 'Whether the determination of the Review Panel contained errors of law or fact sufficient to warrant intervention by the District Court']

Ratio Decidendi

No error of law or fact was found in the Review Panel's assessment of costs: proportionality and reasonableness were properly considered in context. Allowances for solicitors' costs, use of staff, and Senior Counsel were justified given the proceedings' complexity and conduct. The appeal was dismissed as the plaintiff failed to establish any reviewable error in the Review Panel's determinations.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; orders as to costs and further applications reserved.

Orders

  • ["Summons dismissed; plaintiff's grounds of appeal dismissed." 'Costs reserved with liberty to apply, including the bringing of any application for a gross sum costs order.' 'Liberty to apply in relation to any claim for interest.' 'Exhibits retained until further order.']