Rahman v Al-Maharmeh (No 2) [2021] NSWCA 151

Rahman v Al-Maharmeh (No 2) [2021] NSWCA 151

No order as to costs was appropriate between the appellant and respondent because, although the appellant succeeded, the proceedings were necessitated by the appellant's default and inadequate explanation, while the respondent increased the costs by actively opposing the extension application and appeal and did not seek costs against the appellant. Prominent Lawyers had at least acted negligently by failing to commence proceedings in time and by not providing a better explanation, and that negligence necessitated the District Court application and appeal; however, it was not just to require Prominent Lawyers to compensate the respondent because the respondent chose to actively oppose the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination Following Appeal Concerning Leave to Commence Proceedings Out of Time Under (nsw) Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, S 109 / On the Papers After the Court Granted Leave to Appeal and Allowed the Appeal, With Costs Unresolved
Outcome
No order as to costs between the appellant and respondent; costs and disbursements of the relevant proceedings disallowed as between Prominent Lawyers and the appellant under (NSW) Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 99.
Legal Topics
['party/party Costs' 'personal Costs Orders Against Legal Practitioners' 'wasted Costs' 'solicitor/client Costs' 'leave to Commence Proceedings Out of Time']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'motor Accidents Compensation'] ['party/party Costs' 'personal Costs Orders Against Legal Practitioners' 'wasted Costs' 'solicitor/client Costs' 'leave to Commence Proceedings Out of Time']

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 Determination Following Appeal Concerning Leave to Commence Proceedings Out of Time Under (nsw) Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, S 109 / On the Papers After the Court Granted Leave to Appeal and Allowed the Appeal, With Costs Unresolved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What costs order, if any, should be made as between the appellant and the respondent for the District Court motions and the appeal.' "Whether Prominent Lawyers should be ordered to pay or indemnify the respondent for its costs as a wasted costs order or under the Court's costs jurisdiction." 'Whether all or part of the costs and disbursements should be disallowed as between Prominent Lawyers and the appellant under (NSW) Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 99.']

Ratio Decidendi

No order as to costs was appropriate between the appellant and respondent because, although the appellant succeeded, the proceedings were necessitated by the appellant's default and inadequate explanation, while the respondent increased the costs by actively opposing the extension application and appeal and did not seek costs against the appellant. Prominent Lawyers had at least acted negligently by failing to commence proceedings in time and by not providing a better explanation, and that negligence necessitated the District Court application and appeal; however, it was not just to require Prominent Lawyers to compensate the respondent because the respondent chose to actively oppose the...

Court Disposition

No order as to costs between the appellant and respondent; costs and disbursements of the relevant proceedings disallowed as between Prominent Lawyers and the appellant under (NSW) Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 99.

Orders

  • ["As between the appellant and the respondent, make no order as to costs of the proceedings in the District Court on the appellant's motion filed 3 October 2019 and the respondent's motion filed 28 August 2019, or of the proceedings in this Court, to the intent that each party bear its own costs." "Pursuant to (NSW)...