Sukkar v Haoui [2022] NSWDC 83

Sukkar v Haoui [2022] NSWDC 83

Leave to withdraw was refused because Prominent Lawyers remained the plaintiff's solicitor on the record, failed to give notice or apply to withdraw when it should have done so, did not notify the Court or defendant when the hearing date was potentially imperilled, wrongly assumed other solicitors would take over, and brought the application less than a week before the hearing in circumstances where withdrawal would be unfair to the plaintiff, inconvenient to the defendant and the Court, and contrary to case-management obligations.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury Proceeding; Solicitor's Notice of Motion for Leave to Withdraw as the Plaintiff's Solicitor / Procedural Application Before the Scheduled Hearing Commencing 28 March 2022
Outcome
Notice of motion for leave to withdraw dismissed; costs applications deferred for determination on the papers.
Legal Topics
['leave for Solicitor to Withdraw' 'notice of Intention to Cease to Act' 'case Management' 'duties of Solicitor on the Record' 'costs Against Solicitors Personally']
['civil Procedure' 'legal Profession' 'personal Injury'] ['leave for Solicitor to Withdraw' 'notice of Intention to Cease to Act' 'case Management' 'duties of Solicitor on the Record' 'costs Against Solicitors Personally']

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

Civil Personal Injury Proceeding; Solicitor's Notice of Motion for Leave to Withdraw as the Plaintiff's Solicitor / Procedural Application Before the Scheduled Hearing Commencing 28 March 2022

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Anthony Bazouni of Prominent Lawyers should be granted leave under r 7.29(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) to withdraw as the plaintiff's solicitor shortly before the hearing." 'Whether Prominent Lawyers remained the solicitor on the record despite an asserted termination of retainer and possible involvement of other solicitors.' "Whether the lateness of the application and the applicant's omissions were inconsistent with duties to the Court, the plaintiff, the defendant and the administration of justice." 'Whether costs applications, including possible personal costs under s 99 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), should be dealt with after further submissions.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to withdraw was refused because Prominent Lawyers remained the plaintiff's solicitor on the record, failed to give notice or apply to withdraw when it should have done so, did not notify the Court or defendant when the hearing date was potentially imperilled, wrongly assumed other solicitors would take over, and brought the application less than a week before the hearing in circumstances where withdrawal would be unfair to the plaintiff, inconvenient to the defendant and the Court, and contrary to case-management obligations.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion for leave to withdraw dismissed; costs applications deferred for determination on the papers.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed by Anthony Bazouni of Prominent Lawyers, dated 23 March 2022, is dismissed.' 'Applicants, including the interested party, for costs orders are to serve any additional evidence and a short outline of submissions not exceeding 3 pages by 4 April 2022.' 'Mr Bazouni is to serve any...