Legal Research
Cases
Lukic v de Luca-Leonard (No 3)

Lukic v de Luca-Leonard (No 3)

Case [2017] NSWSC 1074 27 September 2017

Costs

Indemnity Costs

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lukic v de Luca-Leonard (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 1074
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 27 September 2017
Decision date: 27 September 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
(1) Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings, including those costs related to determination of the special costs dispute.
(2) Order that the costs payable in accordance with order (1) be paid on an indemnity basis.

Catchwords: COSTS – successful plaintiff – costs follow the event – solicitor and client dispute – no reasonable basis for solicitor to defend claim by a former client for provision of itemised bill of costs – indemnity costs – defendant’s resistance to the relief claimed ill-founded
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Legal Profession Act 2004
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW)
Cases Cited: Beoco Ltd v Alfa Laval Co Ltd [1995] QB 137
Bolger v McDermott (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1330
Capogreco v Rogerson [2016] NSWCA 61
Chaina v Alvaro Homes Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 353
Cirillo v Consolidated Press Property Ltd (formerly known as Citicorp Australia Limited) (No 2) [2007] FCA 179
Dias Aluminium Products Pty Ltd v Ullrich Aluminium Pty Ltd (No 2) [2005] FCA 1400
Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd [1988] FCA 202; 81 ALR 397
GAIN Capital UK Limited v Citigroup Inc (No 2) [2016] FCA 243
Hally v Dennis (1955) 95 CLR 661; [1955] HCA 41
Hansell v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2016] NSWCA 311
Knight v Clifton [1971] Ch 700
Lukic v de Luca-Leonard [2017] NSWSC 814
Lukic v de Luca-Leonard (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 841
McKeith v Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC; Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC v James (No 2) [2016] NSWCA 260
Peters v Peters (1907) 7 SR (NSW) 398
Qualify Me Pty Ltd v Get Qualified Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 309
Qualify Me Pty Ltd v Get Qualified Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2016] FCA 460
Re Wilcox; Ex parte Venture Industries (No 2) [1996] FCA 1942; (1996) 72 FCR 151
RDCW Diamond (Pty) Limited v Da Gloria [2007] NSWSC 1325
Ruddock v Vadarlis (No 2) (2001) 115 FCR 229
Category: Costs
Parties: Miroslavka Lukic (Plaintiff)
Moya Regina de Luca-Leonard (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
H W M Stitt (Plaintiff)
J O’Sullivan (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Wilson Fox Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Bruce Macdonald Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2016/357460
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: I published my reasons for judgment in this matter on 23 June 2017: see Lukic v de Luca-Leonard (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 841. I did not deal with costs. Ms Lukic succeeded and now seeks both an order that her costs be paid and that they be paid on an indemnity basis.
Ms Lukic says that such an order is supported by the following contentions:

She was forced to commence proceedings to obtain information which she was clearly entitled 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 Lukic v de Luca-Leonard (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Lukic v de Luca-Leonard (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 1074
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1074
Decision Date: 27 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lukic v de Luca-Leonard (No 3), the court was tasked with determining a dispute between the parties regarding legal costs. The plaintiff, Lukic, had successfully sued the defendant, de Luca-Leonard, and sought an itemised bill of costs from de Luca-Leonard. The defendant contested the plaintiff's claim for costs, arguing that the plaintiff's solicitor had no reasonable basis for defending the claim. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's solicitor had a reasonable basis for defending the costs claim and, if not, whether the defendant was entitled to indemnity costs. The court needed to assess whether the defendant's resistance to the relief claimed by the plaintiff was ill-founded. This determination was crucial as it would impact the allocation of costs between the parties.

The court found that the defendant's resistance to the relief claimed by the plaintiff was indeed ill-founded. Given that the plaintiff had succeeded in the underlying proceedings and the costs claim, the court held that costs should follow the event. The court ruled that there was no reasonable basis for the defendant's solicitor to contest the costs claim, and therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the costs from the defendant on an indemnity basis. The court's decision underscored the principle that costs should be awarded to the successful party unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from this rule.

The final orders of the court mandated that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis. This ruling emphasised the importance of the principle that costs should follow the event, reinforcing the responsibility of parties to ensure that their legal proceedings are pursued with reasonable prospects of success and that unnecessary costs are avoided.

Orders