Eyears v Zufic

In Eyears v Zufic, the respondent, who had acted as the applicant’s solicitor in Family Court proceedings, sought payment of professional fees in the amount of $126,881.27. The Family Court Registrar assessed the amount as a costs order, which the applicant did not object to. The respondent then instituted proceedings against the applicant for payment of the assessed costs. The applicant counterclaimed alleging gross negligence and damages in excess of $1.2 million. The respondent’s application for summary judgment was dismissed in the Magistrates Court, but on appeal to the District Court, the respondent was granted summary judgment. The applicant argued that the District Court judge erred in allowing a new outline of argument to be relied on at the hearing, predetermined the matter by virtue of his Honour’s ex tempore judgment and that his Honour failed to take into account contentious matters. The applicant also sought an extension of time to appeal the District Court decision.

The court found that the District Court judge was well aware of the factual dispute between the parties and had carefully examined the arguments put to him. The judge had given reasons as to why he came to the decision to grant summary judgment and was well aware of the test for summary judgment contained in r 292 of the UCPR. The judge had a copy of the proposed further re-amended defence and was well aware of the applicant’s argument as to why there was the need for a trial. The court found that there had been no breach of the rules of natural justice, no failure to take into account relevant facts and no error of law. The application for an extension of time to appeal the District Court decision was refused.

The court refused the application for leave to appeal the decision of the District Court and the application for an extension of time to appeal the District Court decision.