Howell v Rose [2000] NSWSC 934

Howell v Rose [2000] NSWSC 934

By November 1997 at the latest the plaintiff was apprised of the amount required to be paid to the defendant, so the 12 month period ran from November 1997 and the application for costs assessment should have been lodged by 30 November 1998. The first application filed on 15 January 1999 was outside the time stipulated by Regulation 25. Assuming the Court had power to extend time, discretion was refused because of the matters relied on by the defendant, the plaintiff's failure to respond to the proper officer's invitations when the assessment file was to be closed, the long lapse of time since the legal work and retainer ended, and the existence of a costs agreement. The amended summons...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time for Application for Costs Assessment / Amended Summons Filed 3 July 2000 Seeking Determination of Costs Assessment Application or Extension of Time
Outcome
Amended summons dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs.
Legal Topics
['costs Assessment' 'extension of Time' 'solicitor Client Costs' 'service of Bill of Costs' 'costs Agreement']
['legal Profession' 'costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs Assessment' 'extension of Time' 'solicitor Client Costs' 'service of Bill of Costs' 'costs Agreement']

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

Extension of Time for Application for Costs Assessment / Amended Summons Filed 3 July 2000 Seeking Determination of Costs Assessment Application or Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's application for assessment of the defendant solicitor's bill of costs was made within the 12 month period prescribed by Regulation 25 of the Legal Profession Regulations 1994 for the purposes of s 199(2) of the Legal Profession Act 1987." "Whether service of the bill on the plaintiff's solicitor was sufficient to start the prescribed period." "Whether the Court had power, and if so should exercise discretion, to extend time for the plaintiff's application for costs assessment."]

Ratio Decidendi

By November 1997 at the latest the plaintiff was apprised of the amount required to be paid to the defendant, so the 12 month period ran from November 1997 and the application for costs assessment should have been lodged by 30 November 1998. The first application filed on 15 January 1999 was outside the time stipulated by Regulation 25. Assuming the Court had power to extend time, discretion was refused because of the matters relied on by the defendant, the plaintiff's failure to respond to the proper officer's invitations when the assessment file was to be closed, the long lapse of time since the legal work and retainer ended, and the existence of a costs agreement. The amended summons...

Court Disposition

Amended summons dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs.

Orders

  • ['The amended summons filed 3 July 2000 is dismissed.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs."]