Rita Cameron v Walker Legal [2013] NSWSC 1985

Rita Cameron v Walker Legal [2013] NSWSC 1985

The first summons was dismissed because no appeal lay to the Supreme Court under s 385 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 and, in any event, Ms Cameron identified no justiciable basis for impugning the Costs Review Panel's determination: the panel addressed her grounds, gave reasons, and there was no demonstrated denial of procedural fairness, inadequate reasons, wrong principle, irrelevant consideration or failure to consider relevant matters. The second summons was dismissed because the Manager, Costs Assessment dealt with the extension application by considering delay, explanation, merits, prejudice and what was just and fair, and Ms Cameron showed no denial of procedural fairness,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law and Costs Assessment Proceedings / Supreme Court Determination of Summonses Seeking Leave to Appeal From a Costs Review Panel Determination and Judicial Review of the Manager, Costs Assessment's Refusal to Extend Time
Outcome
Both summonses dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['costs Assessment' 'costs Review Panel' 'judicial Review' 'extension of Time' 'procedural Fairness' 'jurisdiction']
['administrative Law' 'legal Profession' 'costs'] ['costs Assessment' 'costs Review Panel' 'judicial Review' 'extension of Time' 'procedural Fairness' 'jurisdiction']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Administrative Law and Costs Assessment Proceedings / Supreme Court Determination of Summonses Seeking Leave to Appeal From a Costs Review Panel Determination and Judicial Review of the Manager, Costs Assessment's Refusal to Extend Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to entertain Ms Cameron's appeal or application for leave to appeal from the Costs Review Panel determination." 'Whether the Costs Review Panel determination was vulnerable to being set aside or otherwise challenged on grounds such as denial of procedural fairness, inadequate reasons, wrong principle, irrelevant considerations or failure to consider relevant matters.' "Whether the Manager, Costs Assessment's refusal to extend time for Ms Cameron to apply for review of the 23 November 2011 costs assessment should be judicially reviewed." "Whether Ms Cameron identified any denial of natural justice or procedural fairness in the Manager, Costs Assessment's decision."]

Ratio Decidendi

The first summons was dismissed because no appeal lay to the Supreme Court under s 385 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 and, in any event, Ms Cameron identified no justiciable basis for impugning the Costs Review Panel's determination: the panel addressed her grounds, gave reasons, and there was no demonstrated denial of procedural fairness, inadequate reasons, wrong principle, irrelevant consideration or failure to consider relevant matters. The second summons was dismissed because the Manager, Costs Assessment dealt with the extension application by considering delay, explanation, merits, prejudice and what was just and fair, and Ms Cameron showed no denial of procedural fairness,...

Court Disposition

Both summonses dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['In proceedings number 2012/293348 the summons is dismissed with costs.' 'In proceedings number 2012/328671 the summons is dismissed with costs.']