Esther Sau Kuen Fung v Chung Shun Tam

Esther Sau Kuen Fung sought the appointment of a costs assessor to determine the costs incurred in two separate periods of legal work by Davellin Lawyers. The periods in question were between 10 November 2007 to 21 November 2007, and between 8 March 2010 to 28 April 2010. Chung Shun Tam, the respondent, did not object to the appointment of a costs assessor. The court had to determine whether the application complied with the relevant provisions of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), specifically rules 705 and 710. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the appointment of a costs assessor was appropriate in this case.

The court considered the relevant rules and noted that the application was made within the required timeframe, and there was no objection from the respondent. The court found that the application was compliant with the rules and that it was appropriate to appoint a costs assessor to review the costs statements and tax invoices provided by Davellin Lawyers. The court was satisfied that the application adhered to the necessary procedural requirements and that an assessment would be beneficial in determining the reasonable costs incurred by the applicant.

As a result, Stephen Kenneth Hartwell was appointed as the costs assessor to evaluate the costs claimed for the specified periods. The court also made a declaration that Esther Sau Kuen Fung is a vexatious litigant under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld). Consequently, she was restrained from instituting any proceedings against Chung Shun Tam and Sharon Sau Fong Pun in any Queensland Court without prior leave from a judge of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Queensland. All existing proceedings brought by Esther Sau Kuen Fung against the named respondents were stayed until leave was obtained.

The court ordered that Stephen Kenneth Hartwell be appointed as the costs assessor, that Esther Sau Kuen Fung be declared a vexatious litigant, and that she be restrained from instituting proceedings against the named respondents without leave. Additionally, all existing proceedings against the named respondents were stayed until leave was obtained.