Angelo Ferella and Tiziana Ferella v Donato Lo Surdo and Maria Lo Surdo

The parties involved in this case were Angelo Ferella and Tiziana Ferella, the plaintiffs, and Donato Lo Surdo and Maria Lo Surdo, the defendants. The dispute centred around an application for a review under section 373 of the Legal Profession Act 2004, specifically concerning an application for leave to file an amended summons. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The Ferellas sought to amend their summons which had previously been dismissed on the grounds that it did not state an arguable cause of action.

The court was tasked with determining whether the Ferellas' application for leave to file an amended summons should be granted, considering their prior concession that the original summons lacked an arguable cause of action. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the defendants were entitled to indemnity costs for the costs incurred due to the plaintiffs' failure to comply with court orders.

In ruling on the matter, the court acknowledged that the Ferellas had previously conceded that the original summons did not plead an arguable cause of action, which was a significant factor in the dismissal of the summons. The court further noted the importance of adherence to court orders and the potential consequences of non-compliance. Given the concession made by the Ferellas and their failure to comply with the court's orders, the court determined that the application for leave to file an amended summons should be dismissed. Additionally, the court found that the defendants were entitled to indemnity costs due to the plaintiffs' non-compliance.

The court's final orders were that the application for leave to file an amended summons was dismissed, and the Ferellas were ordered to pay the defendants' indemnity costs. This decision underscored the importance of adherence to court orders and the consequences of failing to do so, as well as the requirement for any summons to present an arguable cause of action.