Liprini v McIntyre - [2016] NSWSC 1195

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Liprini v McIntyre [2016] NSWSC 1195
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 29 August 2016
Decision date: 29 August 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison AsJ
Decision:
The Court orders that:

(1) The orders made by Harrison J on 4 June 2015 are vacated and, in lieu thereof, an order that all issues raised in the pleadings be determined at a final hearing of the proceedings.

(2) The costs in respect of the notice of motion filed 20 April 2015 and the half day hearing on 3 July 2015 are reserved.
(3) The proceedings are listed for directions before the Registrar on 12 September 2016 at 9.00 am.
Catchwords: COSTS – decision reserved pending High Court decision in Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd [2016] HCA 16 – orders consented to by parties – material filed will be relied on in final hearing – costs reserved
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd [2016] HCA 16; 331 ALR 1; 90 ALJR 572
Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd v Attwells [2014] NSWCA 335
Kendirjian v Lepore [2015] NSWCA 132
Young v Hones [2014] NSWCA 337
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Kevin Liprini (Plaintiff)
John McIntyre (First Defendant)
Sandra Hale (Second Defendant)
Jeffrey O’Brien (Third Defendant)
Danny Simpson (Fourth Defendant)
Michael Sommerville (Fifth Defendant)
Representation: Solicitors:
ITC Law Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2013/355003
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HER HONOUR: This is a decision concerning costs only.
On 4 June 2015, by short minutes of order signed by the solicitors for all parties, Harrison J ordered that the following questions be decided separately from any other questions and before trial in these proceedings. They are:

Is the defence of advocate’s immunity a complete answer to the plaintiff’s claim against the first to fifth defendants?

Is the defence of advocate’s immunity a complete answer to any, and if so which, part or parts of the plaintiff’s claim against the first to fifth defendants?

If the answer was yes to any of the questions to be separately determined, the first to fifth defendants would seek an order pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”) 13.4(1)(b) that the plaintiff’s claim against the first to fifth defendants be dismissed in whole or in part, as appropriate, or further or in the alternative, an order pursuant to UCPR 14.28 that the plaintiff’s claim be struck out in whole or in part, as appropriate.
The plaintiff is Kevin Liprini. The first to fifth defendants are John McIntyre, Sandra Hale, Jeffrey O’Brien, Danny Simpson and Michael Sommerville respectively. They are solicitors and at the relevant time were carrying on the business of providing legal services practising in partnership under the name Redmond Hale and Simpson. For convenience, I shall refer to the defendants as…

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 Liprini v McIntyre

Details

AGLC: Liprini v McIntyre [2016] NSWSC 1195
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1195
Decision Date: 29 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Liprini v McIntyre involved a legal dispute between the parties Liprini and McIntyre. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia and centred around issues of costs. The case was primarily concerned with whether the decision on costs should be deferred pending the outcome of a High Court case, Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd. The matter required the court to determine if the material filed in the case could be used in the final hearing and if costs should be reserved until the High Court case was resolved.

The central legal issues that the court needed to decide were whether the case's costs should be determined immediately or deferred pending the High Court's decision in Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd. The parties consented to the orders filed, and the court had to consider whether the material filed would be relied upon in the final hearing. The court also had to decide whether the costs should be reserved pending the High Court decision.

In reaching its decision, the court noted that the parties had consented to the orders filed and that the material would be relied upon in the final hearing. The court also considered the implications of the High Court case, Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd, on the current matter. Given the consent of the parties and the reliance on the material filed, the court determined that it was appropriate to reserve the decision on costs pending the High Court decision. The court's reasoning was based on the need for consistency and clarity in the application of legal principles across related cases.

The court's outcome was to reserve the decision on costs pending the High Court decision in Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd. This decision was in line with the consent of the parties and the reliance on the material filed. The court's final orders were to reserve the costs pending the High Court decision. This ensured that the parties had a clear understanding of the procedural steps and the potential outcomes in the case.

Orders