Arnott v Glissan

[2013] NSWCA 316

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Arnott v Glissan [2013] NSWCA 316

Hearing dates:

21 August 2013

Decision date:

26 September 2013

Before:

Meagher JA at [1];
Barrett JA at [2];
Emmett JA at [3]

Decision:

The application is dismissed with costs.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords:

LEGAL PROFESSION - construction of costs agreement - no question of principle

Legislation Cited:

Legal Profession Act 2004, ss 302A, 322, 350, 357, 361, 368, 372, 373, 374, 375, 378, 380, 382, 384
Supreme Court Act 1970, s 69

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Maralyn June Arnott - applicant
Paul Glissan - first respondent
Reginald John Forster - second respondent
District Court of New South Wales - third respondent

Representation:

Counsel:
The applicant appeared in person.
The first respondent appeared in person.
The second and third respondents did not appear.
Solicitors:

File Number(s):

2013/62788

 Decision under appeal 

Date of Decision:

2012-07-20 00:00:00

Before:

Truss DCJ

File Number(s):

2012/130486

Judgment

1. MEAGHER JA: I agree with Emmett JA.

1. BARRETT JA: I agree with Emmett JA.

1. EMMETT JA: The applicant, Mrs Maralyn Arnott, seeks judicial review under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act1970 in respect of a decision of the District Court. Section 69 provides that, where formerly the Court had jurisdiction to grant any relief or remedy or do any other thing by way of writ of certiorari, the Court shall continue to have jurisdiction to do so by way of judgment or order under that act. That includes jurisdiction to quash the ultimate determination of a court or tribunal in any proceedings if made on the basis of an error of law that appears on the face of the record of the proceedings. The face of the record includes the reasons for the determination.

1. By the decision that Mrs Arnott seeks to impugn, the District Court upheld an appeal under s 384 of the Legal Profession Act2004 (the Legal Profession Act) by the first respondent, Mr Paul Glissan, who is a barrister. Section 384 provides for an appeal against a decision as to a matter of law in a costs assessment application.

1. Mr Glissan was retained to act on behalf of Blue Mountains Virtual Air Helitours Pty Limited (Helitours) in proceedings commenced in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal against Sevenex Pty Limited (Sevenex). Because of the amount claimed, the matter was transferred to the Supreme Court. Following the transfer, Sevenex applied for security for costs. At about the same time, an application was made to the Supreme Court to wind up Helitours in insolvency. While Helitours retained Mr Glissan in relation to the proceedings…