Ahern v Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd

Case [2021] NSWCA 166

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ahern v Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd [2021] NSWCA 166
Hearing dates: 3 March 2021
Date of orders: 6 August 2021
Decision date: 06 August 2021
Before: Meagher JA at [1];
White JA at [98];
Brereton JA at [125]
Decision:

Dismiss the summons filed 3 August 2020 with costs.

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – orders of District Court dismissing appeal on questions of law from costs assessment review panel – where District Court decided reasons given by review panel were adequate – whether jurisdictional error in applying incorrect test for adequacy of reasons – whether error of law on the face of the record in relation to decision that reasons adequate

COSTS – costs assessment – determination by review panel of amount of costs of assessment process and by whom payable – whether review panel required to determine “fair and reasonable amount”

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), s 17

Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW), ss 353, 357, 364, 367A, 368, 369, 370, 375, 378, 380, 382, 384, 385, sch 5

Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), s 94

Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 50.4(1)

Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW), ss 70, 71, 78

Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic)

Cases Cited:

Anonymous (1697) 2 Salk 479; 91 ER 412

Attorney-General (NSW) v Kennedy Miller Television Pty Ltd (1998) 43 NSWLR 729

Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union v ALS Industrial Australia Pty Ltd (2015) 235 FCR 305; [2015] FCAFC 123

Builders Licensing Board v Sperway Constructions (Syd) Pty Ltd (1976) 135 CLR 616; [1976] HCA 62

Cassegrain v CTK Engineering [2008] NSWSC 457

CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172; [1998] HCA 67

Commissioner for Motor Transport v Kirkpatrick (1988) 13 NSWLR 368

Craig v South Australia (1996) 184 CLR 163; [1995] HCA 59

Daley v Hughes (2014) 86 NSWLR 729; [2014] NSWCA 268

Danagher v Racing Penalties Appeal Tribunal (1995) 13 WAR 531

Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxes (SA) vElder’s Trustee and Executor Co Ltd (1936) 57 CLR 610

Farrar v Julian-Armitage [2015] QCA 289

Folbigg v Attorney General of New South Wales [2021] NSWCA 44

Frumar v Owners of Strata Plan 36957 (2006) 67 NSWLR 321; [2006] NSWCA 278

Garret v Foot (1689) Comb 133

Gazecki v McCabes Lawyers Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 98

Ghosh v Medical Council of New South Wales (2020) 102 NSWLR 303; [2020] NSWCA 122

GJ Coles & Co Ltd v Retail Trade Industrial Tribunal (1987) 7 NSWLR 503

Gregg Lawyers Pty Ltd v Farrar [2014] QDC 194

Grocon Constructors Pty Ltd v Planit Cocciardi Joint Venture (No 2) (2009) 26 VR 172; [2009] VSC 426

Hockey v Yelland (1984) 157 CLR 124; [1984] HCA 72

Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border…

Continue reading Ahern v Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ahern v Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd [2021] NSWCA 166
Case
[2021] NSWCA 166
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Ahern and others, sought judicial review of decisions made by the District Court of New South Wales, which had dismissed their appeals against decisions of a costs assessment review panel. The dispute concerned the adequacy of the reasons provided by the review panel in determining the amount of costs payable in a costs assessment process and by whom those costs should be paid.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the District Court erred in finding that the reasons given by the costs assessment review panel were adequate, and whether this constituted a jurisdictional error or an error of law on the face of the record. Specifically, the court considered whether the review panel had applied the correct legal test for the adequacy of its reasons and whether it was required to determine a "fair and reasonable amount" of costs.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the District Court had correctly applied the established legal principles regarding the adequacy of reasons in administrative decision-making. The court found that the reasons provided by the review panel, while perhaps not as detailed as the applicants might have preferred, were sufficient to disclose the essential reasoning process and the basis for its conclusions. The court held that the District Court did not err in law by finding the reasons adequate, nor did it commit a jurisdictional error or an error of law on the face of the record.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the summons filed on 3 August 2020 be dismissed, with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Dismiss the summons filed 3 August 2020 with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.