Amos v Monsour Pty Ltd

The applicant, Amos, sought leave to appeal against the costs assessment made by the District Court following his failed action against Monsour Pty Ltd. The primary judge had assessed the costs at $39,784, and Amos argued that the primary judge erred in not directing himself that the assessment of costs on an indemnity basis equated to an assessment on a solicitor and client basis, rather than providing complete indemnity for costs. Amos also contended that he was denied procedural fairness when his request to inspect the respondent’s solicitor’s file was refused. The court was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in his assessment of costs and whether Amos was denied procedural fairness.

The court found that the primary judge did not err in his assessment of costs on an indemnity basis. The court held that the assessment of costs on an indemnity basis did not equate to an assessment on a solicitor and client basis and that the primary judge's assessment was reasonable and within his discretion. The court also found that Amos was not denied procedural fairness when his request to inspect the respondent’s solicitor’s file was refused. The court held that the primary judge had exercised his discretion appropriately and that Amos had not demonstrated any error in the primary judge’s refusal to allow inspection of the file.

The application for leave to appeal was refused. The court held that the primary judge's assessment of costs was reasonable and that Amos had not demonstrated any error in the primary judge's assessment. The court also held that Amos was not denied procedural fairness when his request to inspect the respondent’s solicitor’s file was refused. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal in an amount to be fixed by the Court. The respondents were directed to file and serve upon the applicant written submissions, verified by affidavit where practicable, directed to establishing that the amount of costs claimed by the respondents was a realistic estimate of the amount of costs which would be assessed on the standard basis. The applicant was then to file and serve upon the respondents any submissions the applicant wished to make concerning the amount of costs to be fixed by the Court, verified by affidavit where practicable.