VAUGHAN v DRIVER [1999] NSWSC 766

VAUGHAN v DRIVER [1999] NSWSC 766

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate an entitlement to an extension of time or leave to appeal. Section 122 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 was not applicable to arrangements between a solicitor and barrister. The lengthy, inadequately explained delay led to loss of documentation and resultant prejudice, so justice would not be served by allowing the applications.

Parties
Plaintiff: Michael John Vaughan; Defendant: Robert Fulton Driver
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and for Leave to Appeal Against Determination of Costs Assessor / Judgment
Outcome
applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Costs Assessment, Statutory Construction, Delay and Prejudice
Civil Procedure Costs Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Costs Assessment Statutory Construction Delay and Prejudice

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael John Vaughan

Plaintiff

Robert Fulton Driver

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time and for Leave to Appeal Against Determination of Costs Assessor / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an extension of time should be granted to bring application for leave to appeal against a Costs Assessor’s determination
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under section 208M of the Legal Profession Act 1987
  3. 3 Whether section 122 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 affects costs arrangements between solicitor and barrister in this context

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate an entitlement to an extension of time or leave to appeal. Section 122 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 was not applicable to arrangements between a solicitor and barrister. The lengthy, inadequately explained delay led to loss of documentation and resultant prejudice, so justice would not be served by allowing the applications.

Court Disposition

applications dismissed

Orders

  • Summons dismissed
  • Plaintiff to pay the costs of the Summons