Homsi v Pasquale (No. 2)

Case [2018] NSWDC 276


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Homsi v Pasquale (No. 2) [2018] NSWDC 276
Hearing dates: 18 and 19 June 2018
Date of orders: 29 June 2018
Decision date: 29 June 2018
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:

(1) Notice of motion filed on 3 April 2018 dismissed.
(2) Costs reserved, with liberty to apply

Catchwords: COST – application for costs of proceedings to be paid by former solicitor – application refused – no issue of principle
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 98 and 99
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 91 and 136
Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014 (NSW), Sch 2 cl 1
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 7.29 and 42.35
Cases Cited: Boland v Dillon (2010) 243 CLR 298
Degiorgio v Dunn (No 2) (2005) 62 NSWLR 284
Harriton v Stephens (2006) 226 CLR 52
Homsi v Nabulsi [2017] NSWDC 16
Homsi v Pasquale [2017] NSWDC 371
In the matter of Optimisation Australia Pty Ltd (Costs) [2018] NSWSC 280
Lemoto v Able Technical Pty Ltd (2005) 63 NSWLR 300
Levick v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2000) 102 FCR 155
Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227
Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd v Myer Holdings Ltd [2017] VSCA 187
Newell; Muriniti v De Costi [2018] NSWCA 49
Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205
State of New South Wales v Stevens (2012) 82 NSWLR 109
Category:Costs
Parties: Plaintiff/Applicant: Souraya Homsi
Defendant: Felli Pasquale
Respondent: Jason Di Michiel
Representation:

Counsel:
Plaintiff/Applicant: Dr S C Thornton
Defendant: Mr A J J Renshaw
Respondent: Mr D Lloyd

  Solicitors:
Plaintiff/Applicant: Drexler & Partners Litigation and Compensation Lawyers
Defendant: Hall & Wilcox Lawyers
Respondent: Kennedys (Australasia) Pty Ltd
File Number(s): 2016/200013
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

The applications before the court

  1. These are proceedings for damages for personal injury arising from a motor vehicle accident the plaintiff was involved in on 28 May 2015. The facts and circumstances of the accident are set out in my judgment of 21 December 2017: Homsi v Pasquale [2017] NSWDC 371. The following orders as set out in that judgment are as follows:

  1. Judgment for the plaintiff for $0.

  2. Costs reserved with liberty to apply.

  1. By notice of motion filed on 27 February 2018, the plaintiff and defendant jointly seek orders as follows:

  1. The time for service of the Notice of Motion be abridged;

  2. Pursuant to Sections 98 and 99 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) an order that Premier Compensation Lawyers or in the alternative Jason Di Michiel trading as Premier Compensation Lawyers pay the costs of Drexler Litigation Lawyers including counsel fees and the defendant’s costs and disbursements on an indemnity basis;

  3. Any further orders this Court deems fit.

  1. The evidence upon which the parties relied was as follows:

  1. Exhibit A – The decision of Homsi v Nabulsi [2017] NSWDC 16;

  2. Exhibit B – Transcript and affidavit of Mr Anthony Crowe;

  3. Exhibit C – Notice of motion filed on behalf of Mr Di Michiel to set aside subpoena;

  4. Exhibit…

Continue reading Homsi v Pasquale (No. 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Homsi v Pasquale (No. 2) [2018] NSWDC 276
Case
[2018] NSWDC 276
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Homsi v Pasquale (No. 2), the applicant sought an order that costs of the proceedings be paid by the former solicitor of the respondent. The case was heard in a lower court in Australia. The applicant argued that the former solicitor should bear the costs due to their conduct during the proceedings, which was deemed to be unreasonable. The respondent contested this application, asserting that there was no basis for the imposition of such costs and that the matter should be dismissed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's former solicitor was liable for the costs of the proceedings due to their conduct. The court had to consider the circumstances under which a solicitor may be ordered to pay costs and whether the applicant's conduct warranted such an order. The court assessed the conduct of the former solicitor, the grounds for the application, and the principles governing the imposition of costs on solicitors. The court determined that there was no compelling reason to impose costs on the former solicitor, as the application did not raise an issue of principle that warranted such an order.

The court found that the application did not meet the criteria necessary for the imposition of costs on a former solicitor. The court emphasised that the imposition of costs on a solicitor is a serious matter and should only be done in exceptional circumstances. The court concluded that the application did not present such exceptional circumstances and, therefore, dismissed the application. The court reserved the question of costs, allowing for potential future applications if warranted. The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to established legal principles when considering applications for costs against a solicitor.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Notice of motion filed on 3 April 2018 dismissed.

(2) Costs reserved, with liberty to apply

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.