Kekatos Lawyers Pty Ltd v Rahme (No 2)

The appeal was brought by the first respondent, Mr Rahme, against an order of the primary judge to pay costs on an indemnity basis to the appellant, Kekatos Lawyers Pty Ltd. The primary judge had ordered indemnity costs after finding that Mr Rahme had engaged in conduct which amounted to an abuse of process. The appeal was dismissed. The court found that the primary judge was correct to conclude that the respondent had abused the process of the court and that there were no grounds for setting aside the indemnity costs order. The court also found that there were no grounds for making an order to recall the judgment made by the primary judge.
The legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge was correct to find that the respondent had engaged in an abuse of process, and whether there were any grounds for setting aside the indemnity costs order. The court found that the primary judge was correct to conclude that the respondent had engaged in conduct which amounted to an abuse of process, and that there were no grounds for setting aside the indemnity costs order. The court noted that the primary judge had considered the issue of costs in detail, and that the appeal was effectively an appeal against the primary judge’s assessment of the costs. The court found that there was no error in the primary judge’s assessment of the costs, and that there were no grounds for making an order to recall the judgment made by the primary judge.