Legal Research
Cases
Gorczynski v AWM Dickinson & Son

Gorczynski v AWM Dickinson & Son

Case [2005] NSWSC 277 6 April 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
Gorczynski v AWM Dickinson & Son [2005] NSWSC 277

HEARING DATE(S): 31 March 2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

6 April 2005

JURISDICTION:
Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF:
Master Harrison

DECISION:
(1) The appeal is dismissed; (2) Leave to appeal is refused; (3) The determination of the Costs Review Panel dated 9 September 2003 is affirmed; (4) The amended summons filed 3 December 2004 is dismissed; (5) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs as agreed or assessed.

CATCHWORDS:
Appeal decision of Review Panel - two bills of costs - the second one being for a higher amount - adequacy of reasons

LEGISLATION CITED:
Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) s 208L

CASES CITED:
Bowen & Ors t/as Duffield & Duffield Solicitors v Campbell & Anor (NSWSC, 2 December 1997, unreported)
CDJ v VAJ [1998] HCA 67
Chapmans Ltd v Yandell (t/as Yandells) [1999] NSWCA 361
Coulter v Regina (1988) 164 CLR 350
Croker v Commissioner of Taxation [2001] NSWSC 188
Florence Investments Pty Ltd v H G Slater & Co [1975] 2 NSWLR 398
Larsen v Vile [1999] NSWCA 397
Madden v NSW IMC [1999] NSWSC 196

PARTIES:
Peter Francis Gorczynski
(Plaintiff)
Bruce Wallace Arnold Dickinson & Andrew Wallace Bruce Dickinson t/as AWM Dickinson & Son

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 13358/2004

COUNSEL:
Mr M L Brabazon
(Plaintiff)
Mr J Gruzman
(Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
Mr M Cassin,
Brian Muir & Company
(Plaintiff)
Mr A Dickinson,
AWM Dickinson & Son
(Defendant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
Costs Review Panel

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
91162/2003

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Members Mr G A Walsh & Mr G A Salier

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

MASTER HARRISON

WEDNESDAY, 6 APRIL 2005
13358/2004 - PETER FRANCIS GORCZYNSKI v
BRUCE WALLACE ARNOLD DICKINSON

and ANDREW WALLACE BRUCE DICKINSON t/as AWM DICKINSON & SON

JUDGMENT (Appeal decision of Review Panel
- two bills of costs – the second one

being for a higher amount – adequacy
of reasons)

1 MASTER: By amended summons filed 3 December 2004, the plaintiff seeks: firstly, an order that the time for filing an appeal be extended; secondly, an order pursuant to s 208L of the Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) (the Act) setting aside the determination of the Costs Review Panel dated 9 September 2003; thirdly, an order pursuant to s 208M of the Act granting leave to appeal to this court from the determination of the Review Panel and for this court to hear and determine the appeal; fourthly, the plaintiff seeks a redetermination of the defendant’s costs assessment application; fifthly, a declaration that the defendants are not entitled to costs for legal services which are in excess of the amounts claimed in their bill dated 14 January 2003; sixthly, a declaration that the defendants are not entitled to costs for legal services which are in excess of the amounts claimed in their bill dated 4 February 2003; seventhly, an order for reference to a referee appointed by the court for inquiry and report by the referee…

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 Gorczynski v AWM Dickinson & Son

Details

AGLC: Gorczynski v AWM Dickinson & Son [2005] NSWSC 277
Case: [2005] NSWSC 277
Decision Date: 6 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Gorczynski v AWM Dickinson & Son, the parties involved were Gorczynski, the appellant, and AWM Dickinson & Son, the respondent. The nature of the dispute centred around the adequacy of reasons provided by a Review Panel concerning two bills of costs issued by the respondent. The initial bill was for a certain amount, while the second one was for a higher amount. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide revolved around whether the Review Panel had provided sufficient reasons for the approval of the second bill of costs, which was for a higher amount than the first. The appellant argued that the Review Panel had failed to provide adequate reasons, while the respondent contended that the reasons provided were sufficient. The court had to consider whether the Review Panel's decision was lawful, rational, and transparent, and whether the reasons provided were adequate to justify the approval of the second bill of costs.

The court, in its reasoning, examined the Review Panel's decision and the reasons provided for approving the second bill of costs. It was determined that the Review Panel had failed to adequately explain the basis for the approval of the second bill of costs, particularly in relation to the higher amount. The court held that the Review Panel's decision was not adequately reasoned and, as a result, the approval of the second bill of costs was quashed. The court emphasised the importance of providing clear and detailed reasons for such decisions to ensure transparency and accountability in the legal process.

As a result of the court's decision, the Review Panel's approval of the second bill of costs was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the Review Panel for reconsideration. The court did not provide any further orders or directions in relation to the dispute.

Orders