Coshott v Spencer [2017] NSWCA 118

Coshott v Spencer [2017] NSWCA 118

The summons was dismissed because the costs assessor had jurisdiction to determine whether Mr Coshott had standing as a third party payer, the referral by the Manager, Costs Assessment did not amount to an implied determination of that status, and the evidence did not establish that Mr Coshott was under a legal obligation to pay the clients' legal costs within s 302A. The Court also held that the Chorley exception continued to apply in New South Wales, so the costs assessor did not err in allowing Mr Spencer professional costs as a self-represented solicitor.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review of District Court Decision and Costs Assessment Determination / Court of Appeal Summons
Outcome
Summons dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['costs Assessment Under the Legal Profession Act 2004 (nsw)' 'third Party Payer' 'jurisdictional Error' 'role of Costs Assessor and Manager, Costs Assessment' 'chorley Exception' 'self Represented Solicitor Professional Costs' 'civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw) S 98']
['costs' 'statutory Interpretation' 'judicial Review' 'legal Profession'] ['costs Assessment Under the Legal Profession Act 2004 (nsw)' 'third Party Payer' 'jurisdictional Error' 'role of Costs Assessor and Manager, Costs Assessment' 'chorley Exception' 'self Represented Solicitor Professional Costs' 'civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw) S 98']

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 Judicial Review of District Court Decision and Costs Assessment Determination / Court of Appeal Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Gibson DCJ erred in law in holding that the costs assessor had jurisdiction to determine whether Mr Coshott was a third party payer within the meaning of s 302A of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW).' 'Whether the Manager, Costs Assessment had implicitly or exclusively determined that Mr Coshott was a third party payer by referring the application to a costs assessor.' 'Whether Mr Coshott was a non-associated third party payer within the meaning of s 302A(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW).' 'Whether the Chorley exception to the rule that a self-represented litigant is not entitled to professional costs applies in New South Wales having regard to Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 3 and 98.']

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was dismissed because the costs assessor had jurisdiction to determine whether Mr Coshott had standing as a third party payer, the referral by the Manager, Costs Assessment did not amount to an implied determination of that status, and the evidence did not establish that Mr Coshott was under a legal obligation to pay the clients' legal costs within s 302A. The Court also held that the Chorley exception continued to apply in New South Wales, so the costs assessor did not err in allowing Mr Spencer professional costs as a self-represented solicitor.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Summons dismissed with costs.']