Legal Research
Cases
Lawrence v Sammut (No 3)

Lawrence v Sammut (No 3)

Case [2022] NSWSC 657 24 May 2022

Costs

Limitation Periods

Admissibility of Evidence

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Lawrence v Sammut (No 3) [2022] NSWSC 657
Hearing dates: 16 May 2022
Date of orders: 24 May 2022
Decision date: 24 May 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Schmidt AJ
Decision:
The referee’s report must be adopted and orders made in favour of Mr Lawrence.
I direct that:
1. the parties confer on costs and the terms of the final orders reflecting the conclusions which I have reached on the matters over which they joined issue; and
2. proposed orders be filed within 14 days, together with short submissions on any matters which are not agreed.

Catchwords:
COSTS — Costs assessment — appeal from review panel — Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act2014 (NSW), s 89 — whether leave required — whether amount in dispute less than $100,000 — leave not required but if it were leave would be granted
COSTS — Costs assessment — appeal from review panel — adequacy of reasons — consent referral to referee under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 — Rule 20.24 — whether referee’s report should be adopted or “noted” and appeal dismissed — report adopted
COSTS — Interest — whether to calculate from date of costs order or later cost assessment — Civil Procedure Act, s 101 — interest to be calculated from date of order

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act2005 (NSW), ss 56, 60, 101
Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW), s 380
Legal Profession General Uniform Rules 2015
Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014 (NSW), Pt 9.2, ss 172, 198, 199(1), 199(2)(b), 201
Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act2014 (NSW), Pt 7, ss 67, 82, 83, 85(2), 85(3), 89
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 20.13, 20.14, 20.23, 20.24(1), 42.5

Cases Cited:
Ahern v Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd [2021] NSWCA 166
Allesh v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172; [2000] HCA 40
Bellevarde Constructions Pty Ltd v CPC Energy Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 228
Frumar v Owners of Strata Plan 36957 (2006) 67 NSWLR 321; [2006] NSWCA 278
Gazecki v McCabes Lawyers Pty Ltd (2020) 102 NSWLR 259; [2020] NSWCA 98
Gilmore Finance Pty Ltd v Aesthete No 3 Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 114
Lawrence v Ciantar [2019] NSWSC 464
Lawrence v Ciantar [2020] NSWCA 89
Lawrence v Ciantar (No 2) [2020] NSWCA 186
Lawrence v Sammut [2021] FCCA 1929
Mainteck Services Pty Ltd v Stein Heurtey SA (2014) 89 NSWLR 633; [2014] NSWCA 184
Ryde City Council v Tourtouras [2007] NSWCA 218
Super Pty Ltd v SJP Formwork (Aust) Pty Ltd (1992) 29 NSWLR 549

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Wayne Lawrence (Plaintiff)
Alice Sammut (First Defendant)
Paul Ciantar (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms J McDonald

Mr W Lawrence (self-represented)
Solicitors:
McLean & Associates

File Number(s): 2021/57931

Judgment

In April 2019 in proceedings concerning a development on a property at Forestville, Henry J dismissed the summons and ordered Mr Lawrence to pay the defendants’ costs: Lawrence v Ciantar [2019] NSWSC 464. Her Honour varied…

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 Lawrence v Sammut (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Lawrence v Sammut (No 3) [2022] NSWSC 657
Case: [2022] NSWSC 657
Decision Date: 24 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Lawrence v Sammut (No 3) was brought by the respondent, Lawrence, against the decision of a review panel under the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW) concerning a costs assessment. The appellant, Sammut, was a legal practitioner who had been subject to a costs order in a prior proceeding. Lawrence sought to appeal the review panel's decision, raising issues about the appropriateness of the costs awarded and the procedures followed in assessing those costs.

The primary legal issues before the court involved whether leave was required for an appeal from the review panel's decision, and if so, whether such leave should be granted. Additionally, the court examined the adequacy of the reasons provided by the review panel and the appropriateness of referring the matter to a referee for further examination under Rule 20.24 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. The court also considered the appropriate date from which to calculate interest on the costs awarded, under section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The court found that while leave was not strictly required due to the amount in dispute being less than $100,000, if leave were necessary, it would have been granted. The review panel's reasons were deemed inadequate, and a consent referral to a referee was made. The referee's report was subsequently adopted by the court, and the appeal was dismissed. The court also determined that interest on the costs should be calculated from the date of the original costs order, not from a subsequent cost assessment. This decision provides clarity on the process and criteria for appeals from costs assessments under the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW).

Orders