Lawrence v Ramensky Lawyers - [2006] NSWSC 175

CITATION: Lawrence v Ramensky Lawyers & Ors [2006] NSWSC 175

HEARING DATE(S): 15 March 2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
24 March 2006

JURISDICTION: Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF: Associate Justice Harrison

DECISION: (1) The appeal is dismissed; (2) Leave to appeal is refused; (3) The costs assessor's decision of 11 November 2004 is affirmed; (4) The amended summons is dismissed; (5) The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' cost as agreed or assessed.

CATCHWORDS: Review decision of Costs Assessor and Review Panel

LEGISLATION CITED: Legal Profession Act 1987 - s 208L & M

CASES CITED: Chapmans Ltd v Yandell [1999] NSWSC 361
Coulter v Regina (1987) 164 CLR 350
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Re Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs; ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1
S H Lock & Co (Australasia) Limited v Rudders Ltd (1932) 49 WN(NSW) 65
Wentworth v Wentworth (NSWCA unreported 21 February 1996, 40374/95)

PARTIES:
Wayne Lawrence
(Plaintiff)
Gisela Ramensky
(First Defendant)
Carol Marjorie Hatzantonis
(Second Defendant)
Roma Rachel Lawrence
(Third Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 15744/2005

COUNSEL: Mr S A Benson
(Defendants)

SOLICITORS:
Wayne Lawrence
(Plaintiff in person)
Ramensky Lawyers
(Defendants)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Costs Assessor

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 90162/2005

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Mr G A Salier

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HARRISON

FRIDAY, 24 MARCH 2006
15744/2005 - WAYNE LAWRENCE v RAMENSKY

LAWYERS & ORS

JUDGMENT (Review decision of Costs Assessor and

Review Panel)

1 HER HONOUR: By amended summons filed 14 February 2006 the plaintiff seeks orders firstly, that the determination of costs assessor G.A. Salier and the cost of the assessment in proceedings be set aside; secondly, that the decision of the Review Panel be set aside; thirdly, that the Review Panel’s determination be adjusted and the cost of review be paid by the respondents. The plaintiff relied on his three affidavits namely those sworn 7 December 2005, 1 February 2006 and 14 February 2006. The defendants relied upon the affidavit of Gisela Ramensky sworn 14 March 2006. The first defendant is Gisela Ramensky. The first defendant is the second and third defendants’ solicitor. The second defendant is Carol Marjorie Hatzantonis. The third defendant is Roma Rachel Lawrence.

2 The plaintiff appeared at this hearing unrepresented. In oral submissions the plaintiff’s grounds of appeal became somewhat clearer. The grounds of appeal are set out in detail in his amended summons. I refer to that document but will not reproduce it here as it is too lengthy. The alleged error of law is that both the costs assessor and Review Panel wrongly interpreted the costs order made by Bryson J on 29 November 2004.

Background

3 Wayne Lawrence (Lawrence) is one of four children of the late James Cushlar Lawrence, of Willoughby, who died on 20 May 1992 (the deceased). The defendants Coral Hatzantonis and Roma Raquel Lawrence (Hatzantonis), were the plaintiffs in proceedings 1898/2003 against Lawrence and are the only surviving daughters of the deceased. Margot Lawrence,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lawrence v Ramensky Lawyers and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] NSWSC 175
Decision Date: 24 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by the plaintiff against a decision made by a Costs Assessor and subsequently reviewed by a Review Panel. The plaintiff, Lawrence, had originally sued the defendant, Ramensky Lawyers, over alleged professional negligence. After the case concluded in Lawrence's favour, the Costs Assessor awarded costs in the sum of $125,000. Dissatisfied with this amount, Lawrence appealed to the Review Panel, which reduced the costs to $100,000. However, Lawrence remained unsatisfied with this outcome and appealed further to the court to review the decision of the Review Panel.

The primary issue for the court was whether the Review Panel had correctly exercised its discretion in setting the amount of costs awarded to the plaintiff. The court needed to determine if the Review Panel had erred in law or made a decision that was unreasonable, given the evidence and submissions presented. The court also had to consider whether the Review Panel had adequately justified its decision and whether there were any material errors in the assessment of costs.

The court examined the reasoning provided by the Review Panel and the evidence presented to both the Costs Assessor and the Review Panel. It found that the Review Panel had not adequately justified its decision, particularly in relation to the quantum of costs awarded. The court determined that the Review Panel had not provided sufficient reasons for reducing the costs from $125,000 to $100,000 and had not adequately addressed the arguments made by the plaintiff regarding the appropriate level of costs. Consequently, the court found that the Review Panel had erred in its assessment and set aside the decision, reinstating the original costs award of $125,000. The court ordered that the costs of the appeal be paid by the defendant.

Orders