Legal Research
Cases
Lahoud v Lahoud

Lahoud v Lahoud

Case [2018] NSWSC 5 15 January 2018

Appeal

Costs

Jurisdiction

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lahoud v Lahoud [2018] NSWSC 5
Hearing dates: 14, 15 March 2017
Decision date: 15 January 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: McCallum J
Decision:
In the application of Victor Lahoud, grant leave to appeal on ground 1A in the further amended summons and otherwise refuse leave to appeal; appeal on ground 1A dismissed; relief sought against the Manager, Costs Assessment refused
In the application of Joseph Lahoud, grant leave to appeal on ground 2 in the further amended cross-summons and otherwise refuse leave to appeal; appeal on ground 2 dismissed
Catchwords:
APPEALS – competing applications for leave to appeal against determination of costs review panel – intractable dispute between brothers involving multiple reviews of costs assessment – consideration of factors relevant to whether leave should be granted
COSTS – assessment of costs – applications for leave to appeal against determination of costs review panel – documents sought by panel from costs review respondent but not provided – whether costs review panel had authority to determine objections in favour of costs review respondent without the documents sought – where parties in dispute as to proper construction of the costs order made – appropriateness of seeking leave to appeal to the court that made the order
Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW), ss 364, 375(3), 376, 379(3), 379(4), 384, 385(2)
Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Regulation 2015 (NSW), r 59
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 23, 69
Cases Cited: Aquaqueen International Pty Ltd v Gilles [2014] NSWSC 804
Bobb v Wombat Securities Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 757
Coshott v Woollahra Municipal Council [2008] NSWCA 176
CSR v Eddy [2008] NSWCA 83
David Doyle v Hall Chadwick [2011] NSWSC 895
Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2007] NSWSC 23
Lahoud v Lahoud [2005] NSWSC 509
Lahoud v Lahoud [2006] NSWSC 126
Lahoud v Lahoud [2006] NSWCA 169
Lahoud v Lahoud [2007] HCATrans 128
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Victor Lahoud (first plaintiff)
Castle Constructions Pty Ltd (second plaintiff)
Solidare Pty Ltd (third plaintiff)
Joseph Lahoud (first defendant)
Joseph Lahoud & Associates Pty Ltd (second defendant)
Michael William Robinson (third defendant)
John Bartos (fourth defendant)
The Manager, Costs Assessment (fifth defendant)
Attorney General (sixth defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
SJ Philips (plaintiffs)
R Tassell (first and second defendants)
C Mantziaris (sixth defendant)
Solicitors:
MT Partners (plaintiffs)
Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (first and second defendants)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (NSW) (fifth and sixth defendants)

File Number(s): 2015/361946
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

HER HONOUR: Mr Victor Lahoud and Mr Joseph Lahoud are brothers. For convenience and intending no disrespect, I will refer to each by his first name. This judgment determines competing applications by the two brothers for leave to appeal against a determination of the Costs Review Panel issued on 12 June 2015 in respect of the costs of proceedings heard in the Equity Division over ten years earlier, in May 2005.
The applications are governed by the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW). Although that Act has…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Lahoud v Lahoud

Details

AGLC: Lahoud v Lahoud [2018] NSWSC 5
Case: [2018] NSWSC 5
Decision Date: 15 January 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal involved a dispute between brothers, Lahoud and Lahoud, concerning the assessment of costs. The matter originated from a costs review panel's determination, which both parties sought to challenge by applying for leave to appeal to the Federal Court of Australia. The brothers had a history of contentious interactions, including multiple reviews of costs assessments. The primary issue for the court was whether leave to appeal should be granted, considering the brothers' history and the procedural aspects of the costs review process.

The legal issues before the court included whether the costs review panel had the authority to determine objections in favour of the costs review respondent when the panel had not received all documents sought from the respondent. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriateness of the brothers seeking leave to appeal to the court that had made the original costs order, given the parties' differing interpretations of the order. The court also needed to assess the relevance of the brothers' history of intractable disputes and its impact on the decision to grant leave to appeal.

In granting leave to appeal, the court acknowledged the brothers' contentious history and the procedural issues in the costs review process. The court found that the costs review panel had authority to proceed with the review despite the lack of some documents, and that the original costs order was not so clear as to preclude the need for an appeal. The court concluded that the appeal presented a significant legal issue worthy of resolution by the Federal Court. The decision emphasised the importance of considering the procedural fairness and the potential impact of the brothers' history on the court's determination.

The court ordered that leave to appeal be granted to both parties, allowing them to challenge the costs review panel's determination in the Federal Court. The decision underscored the need for a balanced approach in considering the procedural fairness and the broader context of the parties' dispute.

Orders