Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Amirbeaggi v EB [2023] NSWCA 108 Hearing dates: 15 May 2023 Date of orders: 25 May 2023 Decision date: 25 May 2023 Before: Kirk JA at [1];
Simpson AJA at [2];
Basten AJA at [3]Decision: (1) Dismiss the further amended summons seeking to review the orders made in the District Court on 10 August 2022.
(2) Order that the applicant pay the respondents’ costs in this Court.
Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — supervisory jurisdiction – error of law on face of record – jurisdictional error – decision of District Court requiring leave to appeal – calculation of threshold amount – construction of statute
COSTS — costs assessment — determination of review panel – appeal to District Court — leave requirement – calculation of threshold amount – amount of “costs” in dispute – whether costs can include costs of the costs assessment — no claim for costs of the costs assessment before assessor or review panel – application of Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW), s 89(1)(a)
Legislation Cited: District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 127
Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW), ss 63, 64, 66, 70, 71, 73, 76, 78, 85, 88, 89
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW), s 196
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 69, 101
Cases Cited: Gazecki v McCabes Lawyers Pty Ltd (2020) 102 NSWLR 259; [2020] NSWCA 98
Gilmore Finance Pty Ltd v Aesthete No 3 Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 114
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Farshad Amirbeaggi (Applicant)
EB (First Respondent)
SB (Second Respondent)
RB (Third Respondent)
District Court (Fourth Respondent, submitting)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
B K Nolan (Applicant)
B Tronson / J Rogers (First-Third Respondents)
Yates Beaggi Lawyers (Applicant)
Bartier Perry Lawyers (First-Third Respondents)
File Number(s): 2022/00336033 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court
- Jurisdiction:
- Civil
- Citation:
- Date of Decision:
- 10 August 2022
- Before:
- Gibson DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2021/00316950
HEADNOTE
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
In September 2020 the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents certain costs of proceedings in the Protective List in the Equity Division. In May 2021, the respondents sought an assessment of costs by a costs assessor. The assessor certified two amounts, being (i) $23,709.93 for the costs ordered by the Court, together with interest on costs and the filing fee, and (ii) $1,802.63, for the remuneration of the costs assessor.
On 4 October 2021, the applicant filed an application for review of each determination, seeking to have the first certificate reduced by an amount of $7,780.44 and challenging the obligation to pay the second certificate. A review panel reduced the assessment by $5.93 and issued a further certificate in the amount of $4,598 for the costs of the review, payable by the applicant.
The applicant filed an appeal in the District Court seeking to have the certificates of the Review Panel set aside and seeking orders that…
Continue reading Amirbeaggi v EB
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Amirbeaggi v EB [2023] NSWCA 108
- Case
- [2023] NSWCA 108
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the District Court had made a jurisdictional error in its calculation of the threshold amount for leave to appeal, and whether the District Court had erred in law on the face of the record. Specifically, the court had to determine the meaning of "costs" in the context of s 89(1)(a) of the *Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014* (NSW), particularly whether it included the costs of the costs assessment itself, and whether such costs could be claimed before the initial costs assessor or review panel.
The Court of Appeal held that the District Court had correctly interpreted s 89(1)(a) of the *Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014* (NSW). The court reasoned that the "costs" referred to in the section were the costs of the original legal services, not the costs of the assessment process. As no claim for the costs of the assessment had been made before the assessor or review panel, the threshold amount for leave to appeal to the District Court had not been met. Consequently, the District Court had not erred in law or jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's summons seeking to review the District Court's orders and ordered that the applicant pay the respondents' costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Dismiss the further amended summons seeking to review the orders made in the District Court on 10 August 2022.
(2) Order that the applicant pay the respondents’ costs in this Court.
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.