Kulevska v Coshott [2006] NSWSC 963

Kulevska v Coshott [2006] NSWSC 963

The original bills were valid when served under the regulatory scheme applicable in 1989 and could be relied upon in the assessment. In any event, the regulatory particulars requirements were directory and substantial compliance was sufficient. The costs assessor was entitled to require further particulars, the resubmitted bills made no substantive change, and the plaintiff had the opportunity to make submissions on the original bills, so there was no denial of procedural fairness. Even if the bills were invalid, discretionary relief would not be granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment Dispute Seeking to Set Aside Determinations of a Costs Assessor / Summons Before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division
Outcome
Summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs Assessment' 'bills of Costs' 'jurisdiction of Costs Assessor' 'privative Provisions' 'procedural Fairness' 'discretionary Relief']
['costs' 'legal Profession' 'administrative Law'] ['costs Assessment' 'bills of Costs' 'jurisdiction of Costs Assessor' 'privative Provisions' 'procedural Fairness' 'discretionary Relief']

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

Costs Assessment Dispute Seeking to Set Aside Determinations of a Costs Assessor / Summons Before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the costs assessor lacked jurisdiction because the bills of costs did not comply with particulars required under the Legal Profession Act 1987 and regulations.' 'Whether s 192 of the Legal Profession Act 1987 prevented assessment because resubmitted bills were not given to the plaintiff.' "Whether s 208K of the Legal Profession Act 1987 precluded review of the costs assessor's determination." 'Whether failure to serve the resubmitted bills denied the plaintiff procedural fairness.' 'Whether discretionary relief should be granted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The original bills were valid when served under the regulatory scheme applicable in 1989 and could be relied upon in the assessment. In any event, the regulatory particulars requirements were directory and substantial compliance was sufficient. The costs assessor was entitled to require further particulars, the resubmitted bills made no substantive change, and the plaintiff had the opportunity to make submissions on the original bills, so there was no denial of procedural fairness. Even if the bills were invalid, discretionary relief would not be granted.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The summons be dismissed.' 'The exhibits may be returned.']