Camilleri v Gardiman - [2024] NSWSC 884

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Camilleri v Gardiman [2024] NSWSC 884
Hearing dates: 18 July 2024
Decision date: 22 July 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Faulkner J
Decision:
See [56]

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — adjournment — no matter of principle
SOLICITORS — order to deliver file — order to provide itemised bill of costs

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act2005 (NSW) s 56(1)
Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) s 728
Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014 (NSW) s 472(1)(a)

Cases Cited:
Harrison v Schipp [2001] NSWCA 13

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: John Camilleri (Plaintiff)
John Armando Gardiman (First Defendant)
Terence Louis Goldberg (Second Defendant)
Thady Arnold Andrew Blundell (Third Defendant)
Kiry Chow (Fourth Defendant)
Anne Margaret Hoffman (Fifth Defendant)
Gerard Anthony McMahon (Sixth Defendant)
Arold Martin Dignan (Seventh Defendant)
Richard Dababneh (Eighth Defendant)
Fady Medhat Dous (Ninth Defendant)
Nathan Edwards Bonello (Tenth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
K Young (Plaintiff)
J Brown (First Defendant; Third - Tenth Defendant)
No appearance (Second Defendant)
Solicitors:
Damien Michael, M&A Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Armando Gardiman, Turner Freeman Lawyers (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2024/260188

JUDGMENT EX TEMPORE

HIS HONOUR: Before me sitting in the Duty List is an application made by the Plaintiff by virtue of a Summons filed on 15 July 2024. The Defendants to the Summons are ten named individuals who are the members of a partnership of solicitors called Turner Freeman.
The background to the case is that the Defendants previously acted for the Plaintiff as his solicitor in a number of pieces of litigation, the details of which are not necessary to set out other than to say that they relate to a deceased estate for one of the parents of the Plaintiff. The litigation has been long running and has involved a number of proceedings in the Supreme Court.
The particular matter which arises from the litigation and is relevant to the current application is that costs orders were recently made by Meek J pursuant to which it is necessary for the Plaintiff to identify the capacity in which he was the client of Turner Freeman for particular items of work performed by the Defendants over a number of years. It is necessary for the Plaintiff to identify this because under the orders of Meek J some of the costs are recoverable from the estate and others are not, depending upon the capacity in which the Plaintiff was acting. The Defendants no longer act for the Plaintiff. In order for the Plaintiff to identify which costs are recoverable from the estate and which costs are not, he requires from the Defendants two things: firstly, an itemised bill of costs for all the work undertaken by the Defendants; and, secondly, his files.
The proceedings came before me in the Duty List on Monday 15 July 2024 on which occasion the matter was stood over to today for hearing.
Mr Brown who appears today for the First and Third to Tenth Defendants says that he did not realise the matter was on for…

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 Camilleri v Gardiman

Details

AGLC: Camilleri v Gardiman [2024] NSWSC 884
Case: [2024] NSWSC 884
Decision Date: 22 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Camilleri v Gardiman, the matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute involved a claim for damages resulting from a motor vehicle accident. The defendant, Gardiman, sought an adjournment of the hearing, which was opposed by the plaintiff, Camilleri. Additionally, Camilleri applied for an order compelling Gardiman to deliver the file of documents related to the case and to provide an itemised bill of costs. The court was required to decide whether the adjournment sought by Gardiman was justified and whether Camilleri was entitled to the orders relating to the delivery of the file and the itemised bill of costs.

The court considered the principles governing the grant of adjournments, emphasising that such orders should not be made lightly and should only be granted where there is a compelling reason. The court also examined the authority of the plaintiff to seek the delivery of the file and the provision of an itemised bill of costs. The court found that Gardiman did not provide sufficient justification for the adjournment and that Camilleri was entitled to the orders sought, as they were necessary to prepare for the hearing.

In its decision, the court denied the application for an adjournment, noting that Gardiman had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that warranted a delay. Furthermore, the court granted Camilleri's application for the delivery of the file and the provision of an itemised bill of costs, finding that these orders were appropriate to ensure that Camilleri could adequately prepare for the hearing. The court emphasised that such orders were routine in litigation and did not constitute a matter of principle.

The court ordered Gardiman to deliver the file to Camilleri within seven days and to provide an itemised bill of costs within fourteen days. The case was listed for further directions to ensure that the necessary documents and information were available for the hearing.

Orders