King v Muriniti

In *King v Muriniti*, the applicants, Brendan King and Kristina King, sought orders for personal costs against the respondent, Leonardo Carlo Muriniti, a legal practitioner. The dispute arose from Mr Muriniti's conduct in proceedings brought against the Kings by Margo Young, where the Kings were ultimately successful. The Kings sought to recover costs incurred due to Mr Muriniti's alleged serious incompetence or neglect.

The Court of Appeal of New South Wales was required to determine whether Mr Muriniti's conduct warranted a personal costs order against him. Specifically, the court considered the scope of its jurisdiction to make such orders, including whether it extended to indemnity for contractual liabilities to lawyers and third parties, pursuant to section 99(2)(c) of the *Civil Procedure Act 2005* (NSW). A further issue was the admissibility of findings made in the principal proceedings when exercising jurisdiction to order personal costs against a lawyer, under section 91 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW).

The court reasoned that the jurisdiction to make personal costs orders against legal practitioners is a broad one, intended to address conduct that falls short of the required standard. It held that findings of fact made in the principal proceedings were admissible and could be relied upon when considering a personal costs order. The court found that Mr Muriniti's conduct did constitute serious incompetence and neglect, justifying the imposition of a personal costs order.

The court ordered that Mr Muriniti indemnify the Kings against costs payable by them in relation to the proceedings brought by Ms Young, limited to the amount Ms Young was liable to pay pursuant to the costs orders made by the Court in dismissing her appeals. Additionally, Mr Muriniti was ordered to pay the costs of the motions filed by the Kings on 31 October 2016 in each proceeding.