Bouras v Grandelis

The appeal concerned the interpretation of "assessed on a solicitor and client basis" within the context of the District Court Rules 1973 (NSW), specifically Part 39A, Rule 25(4). The appellant, Bouras, sought to challenge a costs assessment, while the respondent, Grandelis, sought to uphold it. The central dispute revolved around whether this phrase carried the same meaning as "costs on an indemnity basis" as stipulated in Part 39A, Rule 13 of the same Rules, and how these provisions interacted with the broader costs assessment framework established by Part 11, Division 6 of the Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW).

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was to determine the precise meaning and application of "assessed on a solicitor and client basis" under the District Court Rules, particularly in relation to the concept of indemnity costs. This required the court to consider the interplay between the District Court Rules and the provisions of the Legal Profession Act governing the assessment of costs, including the assessment of costs on a "fair and reasonable" basis under section 208F of the Act.

The Court of Appeal held that "solicitor and client costs" under the District Court Rules did not equate to "indemnity costs." It reasoned that while both involve a broader assessment than party and party costs, solicitor and client costs are generally understood to encompass all costs reasonably incurred and properly incurred, whereas indemnity costs are a more stringent standard, requiring that costs be not only reasonable but also necessarily incurred. The court found that the assessment under the relevant District Court Rule was not intended to reach the level of indemnity costs. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.