Treadwell v Hickey [2010] NSWSC 1119

Treadwell v Hickey [2010] NSWSC 1119

The threshold for ordering costs against a solicitor under s 348 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 and/or s 99 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 was not met because Mr Fitzpatrick maintained an objectively reasonable belief, based on instructions and available evidence, that the claims had reasonable prospects of success. Similarly, there was no basis for indemnity costs against Mr Treadwell as there was no relevant misconduct or delinquency. Therefore, the application for the costs orders was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs Order Against Solicitor and Variation of Costs Order Against Plaintiff / Post Trial Costs Determination
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs awarded against applicant.
Legal Topics
['costs Orders Against Solicitors' 'wasted Costs' 'reasonable Prospects of Success' 'indemnity Costs' 'professional Competence']
['civil Procedure' 'professional Responsibility'] ['costs Orders Against Solicitors' 'wasted Costs' 'reasonable Prospects of Success' 'indemnity Costs' 'professional Competence']

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

Application for Costs Order Against Solicitor and Variation of Costs Order Against Plaintiff / Post Trial Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the solicitor acted without reasonable prospects of success under Legal Profession Act 2004 s 348 and/or Civil Procedure Act 2005 s 99' 'Whether costs should be ordered against the plaintiff on an indemnity basis']

Ratio Decidendi

The threshold for ordering costs against a solicitor under s 348 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 and/or s 99 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 was not met because Mr Fitzpatrick maintained an objectively reasonable belief, based on instructions and available evidence, that the claims had reasonable prospects of success. Similarly, there was no basis for indemnity costs against Mr Treadwell as there was no relevant misconduct or delinquency. Therefore, the application for the costs orders was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs awarded against applicant.

Orders

  • ['The amended notice of motion filed on 4 June 2010 is dismissed.' 'The applicant under the amended notice of motion will pay the costs of the respondents of and incidental to the amended notice of motion.']