Homsi v Pasquale (No. 3)

Case [2018] NSWDC 279


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Homsi v Pasquale (No. 3) [2018] NSWDC 279
Hearing dates: 27 September 2018
Date of orders: 05 October 2018
Decision date: 05 October 2018
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:

(1) Plaintiff pay the respondent’s costs of the appearances on 22 and 24 May 2018 in relation to the notice to produce served by the respondent, Mr Jason Di Michiel trading as Premier Compensation Lawyers Pty Ltd.
(2) Application by the respondent, Mr Jason Di Michiel trading as Premier Compensation Lawyers Pty Ltd, for costs of the motion filed on 27 February 2018 dismissed, with each party to pay his, her or its costs of the application, including the hearing on 28 September 2018.

Catchwords: COSTS – unsuccessful application for costs against the solicitor for the defendant – whether costs should follow the event – whether the solicitor’s conduct “invited” the application - “disentitling conduct” – each party to pay own costs of the application
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56 – 62, 98 and 99
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 42.1, 42.34 and 42.35
Cases Cited: Arian v Nguyen [2001] NSWCA 5
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited v Jaeger (District Court of New South Wales, 23 August 2017)
Cha v Oh (No 13) (2009) 9 DCLR (NSW) 67
Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 11 SASR 1
Homsi v Nabulsi [2017] NSWDC 16
Homsi v Pasquale [2017] NSWDC 371
Homsi v Pasquale (No. 2) [2018] NSWDC 276
Mahenthirarasa v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (No 2) (2008) 72 NSWLR 273
Moseley v AB (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1812
Ritter v Godfrey [1920] 2 KB 47
Ryde Developments Pty Ltd v Property Investors Alliance Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 40
Tomanovic v Global Mortgage Equity Corp Pty Ltd (No 2) (2011) 288 ALR 385
Waterman v Gerling (Costs) [2005] NSWSC 1111
Texts Cited: P. Taylor, Dr E. Elms, M. Meek SC, The Hon Justice G. Bellew, Ritchie's Uniform Civil Procedure NSW (LexisNexis, Australia)
Category:Costs
Parties: Plaintiff/Applicant: Souraya Homsi
Defendant: Felli Pasquale
Respondent: Jason Di Michiel
Representation:

Counsel:
Plaintiff/Applicant: Mr Purkiss
Defendant: Mr A J J Renshaw
Respondent: Ms A Horvath

  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 application before the court

  1. In my judgment Homsi v Pasquale (No. 2) [2018] NSWDC 276, I dismissed a notice of motion seeking orders pursuant to ss 98 and 99 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) for the plaintiff’s former solicitor (hereafter “Mr Di Michiel”) to pay the costs of Drexler Litigation Lawyers including counsel fees and the defendant’s costs and disbursements on an indemnity basis. Mr Di Michiel now brings an application for costs of the unsuccessful motion.

A preliminary application by the plaintiff

  1. As a preliminary matter, I note that Mr Purkiss, who appeared for the plaintiff, sought leave to withdraw from the proceedings.

  2. I have already…

Continue reading Homsi v Pasquale (No. 3)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Homsi v Pasquale (No. 3) [2018] NSWDC 279
Case
[2018] NSWDC 279
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Homsi v Pasquale (No. 3) involved the plaintiff, Homsi, and the defendant, Pasquale. The dispute arose from an unsuccessful application for costs against the solicitor for the defendant, Mr Jason Di Michiel, who was trading as Premier Compensation Lawyers Pty Ltd. The legal issues at hand were whether the unsuccessful party should bear the costs of the solicitor for the successful party and whether the conduct of the solicitor "invited" the application for costs. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court needed to determine the principles governing costs in such circumstances and whether the conduct of the solicitor constituted "disentitling conduct" that warranted an award of costs. The court considered the nature of the application and the solicitor's conduct, including whether it was reasonable and appropriate to make the application for costs. The court held that the conduct of the solicitor did not amount to "disentitling conduct" and that costs should not follow the event in this case.

In light of the court's reasoning, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the appearances on 22 and 24 May 2018 in relation to the notice to produce served by the defendant's solicitor. The application by the defendant's solicitor for costs of the motion filed on 27 February 2018 was dismissed, with each party to pay their own costs of the application, including the hearing on 28 September 2018.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Plaintiff pay the respondent’s costs of the appearances on 22 and 24 May 2018 in relation to the notice to produce served by the respondent, Mr Jason Di Michiel trading as Premier Compensation Lawyers Pty Ltd.

(2) Application by the respondent, Mr Jason Di Michiel trading as Premier Compensation Lawyers Pty Ltd, for costs of the motion filed on 27 February 2018 dismissed, with each party to pay his, her or its costs of the application, including the hearing on 28 September 2018.

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.