Firth v Wowk & Ors [2008] NSWCA 104

Firth v Wowk & Ors [2008] NSWCA 104

The order made by the District Court was not authorised by s 348(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 2004, as it required Mr Firth to indemnify the defendants in respect of costs payable by another party, not against the costs payable by the indemnified party. As the statutory power did not authorise that form of order, the appeal was allowed and the order set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Stephen Paul Firth; First Respondent: Jury Wowk; First Respondent: Michael Donovan; Second Respondent: Neil Kennedy
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Order Against Solicitor for Costs, Reasonable Prospects of Success, Legal Profession Act 2004, Indemnity for Costs
Costs Legal Profession Law Order Against Solicitor for Costs Reasonable Prospects of Success Legal Profession Act 2004 Indemnity for Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Paul Firth

Appellant

Jury Wowk

First Respondent

Michael Donovan

First Respondent

Neil Kennedy

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Court had power to make an order under s 348(1)(b) Legal Profession Act 2004 directing the solicitor to indemnify the defendants in respect of another party’s costs order
  2. 2 Whether the order made was authorised by s 348(1)(b) Legal Profession Act 2004
  3. 3 Whether the practice acted without reasonable prospects of success

Ratio Decidendi

The order made by the District Court was not authorised by s 348(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 2004, as it required Mr Firth to indemnify the defendants in respect of costs payable by another party, not against the costs payable by the indemnified party. As the statutory power did not authorise that form of order, the appeal was allowed and the order set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Set aside the order made on 19 April 2007 that Mr Firth indemnify the defendants in respect of the costs order made in paragraph 19.