Doyle v Hall Chadwick

This matter concerned an appeal and a motion for review brought by the applicant, Doyle, against decisions made by a costs review panel and a costs assessor, and related orders concerning costs. The respondents were Hall Chadwick and the Attorney. The proceedings arose from a dispute over costs assessed in prior litigation.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues. These included whether the appeal was limited to costs only, and thus potentially subject to different appeal rights under section 101(2) of the *Supreme Court Act 1970* (NSW). The court also considered the circumstances under which a decision-maker, such as a review panel, could be ordered to pay costs, specifically whether the panel's failure to consider all evidence before the costs assessor, or a lack of good faith, constituted serious misconduct or was otherwise a basis for an adverse costs order, notwithstanding statutory protections. Furthermore, the court examined whether an offer to forgo costs ordered below constituted a genuine element of compromise for the purposes of indemnity costs under the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005* (NSW). Finally, the court considered the appropriateness of lump sum costs orders and the principle of merger of causes of action in judgments, particularly in the context of judicial review of a costs review panel's decision.

The court reasoned that the appeal was not solely "as to costs only" and that the applicant was entitled to an extension of time to file the summons seeking leave to appeal, but leave to appeal itself was refused. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated grounds for reviewing the orders made by Handley AJA or other decisions. Regarding costs, the court ordered the applicant to pay the first respondent's costs on the ordinary basis up to 2 April 2012, and thereafter on the indemnity basis, reflecting an offer of compromise made on that date. The applicant was also ordered to pay the Attorney's costs in the sum of $25,000, which encompassed costs previously ordered by Handley AJA. The court did not make an order quashing the decision of the costs assessor, implying that the order quashing the decision of the costs review panel did not result in the merger of the costs assessor's order.