Legal Research
Cases
Lawrence v Sammut (No. 5)

Lawrence v Sammut (No. 5)

Case [2023] NSWSC 1476 30 November 2023

Jurisdiction

Costs

Admissibility of Evidence

Res Judicata

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. 5) [2023] NSWSC 1476
Hearing dates: 23 October and 16 November 2023
Date of orders: 30 November 2023
Decision date: 30 November 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:
(1) The decision of the Common Law Registrar of 10 July 2023 is confirmed.
(2) Both the notice of motion filed on 7 August 2023, and the amended notice of motion filed on 22 September 2023 are otherwise dismissed.
(3) The plaintiff is to pay the defendants’ costs of the notice of motion and the amended notice of motion including counsel’s fees.
(4) Any application by the defendants for any gross sum or specified costs order should be made by filing, serving and providing to Chambers by email affidavit(s) and written submissions of no more than 3 pages in length on or before 6 December 2023.
(5) Any submissions in reply to any such costs application of not more than 3 pages in length must be filed, served and provided to Chambers by email on or before 13 December 2023.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – application for review of decision of Common Law Registrar – gross sum costs order – large quantity of irrelevant affidavit material filed and served by the plaintiff – all of plaintiff’s affidavit material irrelevant – true issue articulated only in answer to question of the Court at the hearing on 23 October 2023 – Registrar’s reasons fail to overtly deal with costs expert evidence relied upon by the plaintiff – costs expert evidence of no utility, relevance or weight – no basis for setting aside the decision of the Registrar – Registrar’s decision confirmed

Legislation Cited:
Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Al-Shennag v Statewide Roads Pty Limited [2009] NSWSC 210
Auspine Limited v Australian Newsprint Mills Limited (1999) 93 FCR 1; [1999] FCA 673
Lawrence v Sammut (No 4) [2022] NSWSC 1033
Penson v Titan National Pty Limited (No. 3) [2015] NSWCA 121
Sebie v Krejci (No 3) [2023] NSWCA 221
Wily re LED (South Coast) Pty Ltd (2009) 76 NSWLR 428; [2009] NSWSC 946

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Wayne James Lawrence (Plaintiff) (Self-represented)
Alice Alexandria Sammut (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Spencer (Defendant)
Solicitors:
McLean & Associates (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2021/00057931
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Amongst other obtuse and irrelevant relief sought in Mr Lawrence’s amended notice of motion filed on 22 September 2023, is an application for review of the decision of the Common Law Registrar dated 10 July 2023. That decision ordered that Mr Lawrence pay the defendants’ costs of the proceedings on a gross sum basis in the amount of $115,000.00 including disbursements.
There is no purpose in my referring to the other forms of relief claimed in the amended notice of motion (or the initiating notice of motion filed on 7 August 2023) other than to note that they were…

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. 5)

Details

AGLC: Lawrence v Sammut (No. 5) [2023] NSWSC 1476
Case: [2023] NSWSC 1476
Decision Date: 30 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lawrence v Sammut (No. 5) involved a review application by the plaintiff against a decision made by the Common Law Registrar regarding a gross sum costs order. The plaintiff, Mr Lawrence, contested the costs order issued by the Registrar, arguing that it was excessive and unjust. The defendant, Ms Sammut, opposed the application for review and sought to confirm the Registrar's decision. The matter was heard by a judge who had to determine whether the Registrar's decision should be set aside or upheld.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the costs order made by the Registrar was appropriate and whether the plaintiff's extensive filing of irrelevant affidavit material warranted a review of the costs decision. The court also had to consider the relevance and utility of the plaintiff's costs expert evidence. The plaintiff argued that the costs order was excessive and disproportionate, while the defendant maintained that the order was fair and that the plaintiff's conduct during the proceedings had inflated the costs.

The court found that the plaintiff had filed a large quantity of irrelevant affidavit material, which was not pertinent to the true issue at hand. The true issue was only articulated by the plaintiff in response to a question from the court during the hearing on 23 October 2023. The court also noted that the Registrar's reasons for the costs order did not overtly address the costs expert evidence provided by the plaintiff, which was deemed to be of no utility, relevance, or weight. The court concluded that there was no basis for setting aside the decision of the Registrar, as the plaintiff had not demonstrated any error or irregularity in the costs assessment process. The court therefore confirmed the Registrar's decision, finding it to be just and appropriate.

Orders