Lawrence v Sammut (No 3) [2022] NSWSC 657

Lawrence v Sammut (No 3) [2022] NSWSC 657

Leave to appeal was not necessary because the amount in dispute on the appeal was not shown to be less than $100,000; if leave were required it should be granted because the Review Panel's errors were accepted, the parties had consented to the referee's assessment, and the referee's unchallenged report revealed costs not covered by Henry J's orders and costs that were not reasonable. The report should be adopted because no error was alleged or apparent, the referee undertook the task required by s 89 and the consent orders, and justice required giving effect to the unchallenged assessment. Interest should run from 26 April 2019 under s 101 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), as there...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Review Panel in Costs Assessment Proceedings / Principal Judgment Following Consent Referral to Referee
Outcome
Referee's report adopted; orders to be made in favour of Mr Lawrence; interest calculated from the date of Henry J's costs order; parties directed to confer and file proposed final orders.
Legal Topics
['costs Assessment' 'appeal From Review Panel' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'referral to Referee' "adoption of Referee's Report" 'interest on Costs' 'leave to Appeal']
['costs' 'legal Profession' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs Assessment' 'appeal From Review Panel' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'referral to Referee' "adoption of Referee's Report" 'interest on Costs' 'leave to Appeal']

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

Appeal From Review Panel in Costs Assessment Proceedings / Principal Judgment Following Consent Referral to Referee

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal was necessary under s 89 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW).' 'If leave to appeal was necessary, whether it should be granted.' "Whether the referee's report should be adopted by the Court or merely noted and the summons dismissed." 'From what date interest on the costs order should be calculated.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was not necessary because the amount in dispute on the appeal was not shown to be less than $100,000; if leave were required it should be granted because the Review Panel's errors were accepted, the parties had consented to the referee's assessment, and the referee's unchallenged report revealed costs not covered by Henry J's orders and costs that were not reasonable. The report should be adopted because no error was alleged or apparent, the referee undertook the task required by s 89 and the consent orders, and justice required giving effect to the unchallenged assessment. Interest should run from 26 April 2019 under s 101 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), as there...

Court Disposition

Referee's report adopted; orders to be made in favour of Mr Lawrence; interest calculated from the date of Henry J's costs order; parties directed to confer and file proposed final orders.

Orders

  • ['The parties confer on costs and the terms of the final orders reflecting the conclusions reached on the matters over which they joined issue.' 'Proposed orders be filed within 14 days, together with short submissions on any matters which are not agreed.']