Kuek v Devflan Pty Ltd

[2012] VSC 571

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2004 9228

Gabriel Kuek	Plaintiff
v
Devflan Pty Ltd	First Defendant
- and -
Ljubomir Nikolovski	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	KYROU J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 November 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 November 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Kuek v Devflan Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 571
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	Kuek v Devflan Pty Ltd [2012] VSC 327 (7 August 2012, Mukhtar AsJ)

---

COSTS – Taxation of costs – Application for review of costs order from a Judge of the  Court –Non-compliance with time limit for filing and service of notice applying for review – Whether acceptable explanation for delay – Prejudice to other party – Prospects of success –Application for review set aside.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Overarching obligations under Part 2.3 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 – Protracted delay with no explanation for the delay – Contravention of overarching obligation – Civil Procedure Act ss 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr D Perkins	Access Law
For the Defendants	Mr R Heath	Brygel Lawyers

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction and summary............................................................................................................... 1

History of the dispute between the parties and procedural context......................................... 2

Relevant rules..................................................................................................................................... 6

Principles relating to the granting of extensions of time............................................................ 7

The filing and service of the Notice................................................................................................ 8

The Notice was filed and served out of time................................................................................ 9

Has Mr Kuek provided an acceptable explanation for his delay?.......................................... 10

Did the late filing and service of the Notice cause prejudice to the defendants?................ 12

The prospects of success of a review under r 63.57 of the Rules............................................. 13

Civil Procedure Act.......................................................................................................................... 19

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 23

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction and summary

1. This is an appeal from an order made by Mukhtar AsJ on 30 August 2012 setting aside a Notice of Application to Review an Order of a Costs Judge (‘Notice’) that the plaintiff, Mr Gabriel Kuek, filed pursuant to r 63.57 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules2005 (‘Rules’) out of time.[1] Pursuant to r 77.06(7) of the Rules, the appeal involved a hearing de novo of the defendants’ application to set aside the Notice.

   [1]The reasons for the order were delivered on 7 August 2012.  See Kuek v Devflan Pty Ltd [2012] VSC 327 (7 August 2012).

1. Mr Kuek is an experienced litigation solicitor and the principal of the law firm Access Law.  His firm has acted for him in the multiple proceedings in which he has engaged with the defendants. 

1. The key issues in the appeal are:

(a)       whether Mr Kuek has provided an acceptable explanation for the late filing and service of the Notice;

(b)      whether the late filing and service of the Notice caused any prejudice to the defendants;

(c)       whether the Notice had any prospects of success; and

(d)      whether the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (‘Act’) supports the setting aside of…