JUDGE:	McMillan J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 October 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	8 April 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Brown v Guss (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 57

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Costs of successful plaintiff in proceeding where defendant alleged lack of testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval and undue influence — Application by plaintiff that his costs be paid by the defendant and the defendant’s solicitor — Whether costs to be paid on a standard basis or an indemnity basis

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Application by plaintiff to set aside consent costs order made during the proceeding — Misconception by plaintiff that defendant ready for trial — Misconception created by defendant — Whether costs order should be set aside

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS — Overarching obligations under ss 17, 18 and 21 of Civil Procedure Act 2010 — Whether breached by solicitor for losing party — Discretionary considerations under s 29 of Civil Procedure Act 2010

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr S Newton	Higgins Hearn
For the Defendant	Mr R Phillips	Dinley Lawyers
For the Non-party Joseph Guss	Mr D Klempfner	DLA Piper

Introduction

Plaintiff’s application to set aside costs orders made 23 May 2013

Consideration

The plaintiff’s application for costs of the proceeding

The plaintiff’s application for costs against the defendant

The plaintiff’s submissions
The defendant’s submissions

Consideration of costs orders sought against defendant

Should the defendant pay costs on an indemnity basis?

The plaintiff’s submissions for costs of the proceeding against the non-party Joseph Guss

The submissions of the non-party Joseph Guss

Absence of coherent and logical legal basis
Special considerations that apply when a non-party costs order is sought against a party’s legal practitioner
Not supported by the Court’s findings of fact as set out in the reasons for decision
Serious allegations against Joseph Guss of criminal conduct that are not appropriate for summary determination

Applicable principles

Consideration of costs orders sought against the non-party Joseph Guss

The role of Joseph Guss in the proceeding
Allegations of collusion on the part of Joseph Guss in respect of the evidence of the Guss family witnesses
No claim made for costs against Guss family witnesses
No waiver of legal professional privilege by the defendant
Claim made in an attempt to access Joseph Guss’ professional indemnity insurance
Plaintiff’s inability to enforce costs orders against the defendant or that Joseph Guss might benefit from the litigation
Conflict of interest and duty on the part of Joseph Guss in acting as the defendant’s solicitor

Has there been a contravention by Joseph Guss of ss 17, 18 or 21 of the CP Act?

Discretion to impose sanctions for contravening the overarching obligations

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

This proceeding concerned the validity of three…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Brown v Guss (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Brown v Guss (No 2) [2015] VSC 57
Case: [2015] VSC 57
Decision Date: 8 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Brown v Guss (No 2), the plaintiff sought an order for the defendant to pay his costs on an indemnity basis, as well as an application to set aside a prior consent costs order made during the proceeding. The dispute arose from an allegation by the defendant that the plaintiff lacked testamentary capacity, knowledge, and approval, and was subject to undue influence. The proceedings were heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary issues before the court were whether the costs should be paid on a standard or indemnity basis, and whether the prior consent costs order should be set aside due to a misconception created by the defendant.

The court considered the overarching obligations of legal practitioners under the Civil Procedure Act 2010 and whether the defendant's solicitor breached these obligations. The court determined that the solicitor for the losing party had indeed breached the overarching obligations under sections 17, 18, and 21 of the Act, by creating a misconception that led to the plaintiff believing the case was ready for trial. The court also took into account the discretionary considerations under section 29 of the Act, which allowed for an assessment of the solicitor's conduct and the impact on the proceedings.

The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, ordering that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis. Additionally, the court set aside the prior consent costs order, recognising the misconception created by the defendant. This decision highlights the importance of legal practitioners adhering to their overarching obligations and the consequences that may arise from failing to do so. The court's ruling serves as a reminder of the need for transparency and accuracy in the conduct of legal proceedings.

Orders