eInduct Systems Pty Ltd v 3D Safety Services Pty Ltd

eInduct Systems Pty Ltd (the appellant) sought judicial review of a decision of the District Court of New South Wales, which had dismissed its appeal from a determination of a costs review panel. The underlying dispute concerned the assessment of costs awarded to certain defendants in a prior proceeding, where the appellant's solicitors' invoice had only named one of the five defendants.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in refusing to allow the appellant to amend its notice of appeal. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the costs review panel had erred in awarding costs to the unnamed defendants, given that all defendants were jointly and severally liable for costs, and legal liability was not solely founded by the invoice. Further, the court considered whether the costs assessor and the costs review panel had erred by issuing a single Certificate of Determination of Costs for two separate costs orders, and whether sections 60 of the *Civil Procedure Act 2005* (NSW) and 364 of the *Legal Profession Act 2004* (NSW) mandated an assessment of the proportionality of costs.

The Court held that no reviewable error of law had been demonstrated. It reasoned that the liability for costs did not depend on the naming of a party in a solicitor's invoice, particularly where all defendants were jointly and severally liable. The Court also found that the issuance of a single certificate for multiple costs orders was not an error, referencing *Wende v Horwath (NSW) Pty Ltd*. Regarding proportionality, the Court determined that section 60 of the *Civil Procedure Act* applied to courts, not costs assessors, and that section 364 of the *Legal Profession Act* did not require an assessment of proportionality, nor was the "outcome" of the matter a mandatory consideration under that section.

The application for judicial review was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.