Morris v Hanley - [2003] NSWSC 523

CITATION: Morris v Hanley [2003] NSWSC 523

HEARING DATE(S): 5 and 12 June 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 June 2003

JURISDICTION:
Equity

JUDGMENT OF: Hamilton J

DECISION: Application to make motion for costs against legal practitioners returnable at same time as argument of costs of proceedings inter parties refused.

CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE [551] - Costs - Jurisdiction - Persons not parties to proceedings - Solicitors for parties - Barristers - Improper conduct - Whether improper conduct could be inferred on material presented.

LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Rules 1970 Part 52A rr 43(1) & 43A(1)

CASES CITED: Pinebelt Pty Ltd v Bagley [2000] NSWSC 655
Wentworth v Rogers [1999] NSWCA 403

PARTIES :
Janine Morris (P)
Jack Norman Hanley (D1)
Geoffrey Donald Reid (D2)
Lynda Maree Cole (D3)
Christine Valmae Hayward (D4)
Anthony Bodycote (D5)
Robyn Janelle Haydon (D6)
Daphne Olive Boyd (D7)
Beverley Joy Armfield (D8)
Gayle Hanley (D9)
Cecil Bellchambers (D10)
Mariani Holdings Pty Limited (D11)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2650/97

COUNSEL: In person (P)
P T Taylor (D1-11)

SOLICITORS: In person (P)
Parker & Kissane (D1-11)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

HAMILTON J

THURSDAY, 12 JUNE 2003

2650/97 JANINE MORRIS v JACK NORMAN HANLEY & ORS

JUDGMENT - On leave to file Motion for Orders for Costs against Legal Practitioners

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application by the plaintiff in these proceedings for leave to file a motion and make it returnable before me on the day to which I have adjourned the argument concerning the costs of these proceedings. That argument is being hard fought, which is not surprising. An estimate has been given that the costs of both sides after the trial exceed $1 million and I should be surprised if that estimate is not true. What is claimed by the motion now sought to be filed and made returnable before me is orders in relation to the costs of the proceedings against four named legal practitioners who have, during the course of the proceedings, acted for the defendants. Those four legal practitioners are:

2 The way in which the application arises is as follows. In the Written Submissions laid before me on the plaintiff’s behalf when I commenced hearing the costs application various allegations were made of misconduct of legal practitioners representing the defendants. I did not, however, at first perceive that orders in respect of costs were actually being sought against those legal practitioners. When, in the course of argument, Mrs Morris made it plain to me that she desired to claim costs orders against those practitioners, I indicated to her that that could not be done without their being given the opportunity to answer the allegations and opposing the orders and…

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 Morris v Hanley

Details

AGLC: Morris v Hanley [2003] NSWSC 523
Case: [2003] NSWSC 523
Decision Date: 12 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Morris v Hanley arose in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the plaintiff, Morris, sought costs against the defendant, Hanley, on the grounds of improper conduct. This dispute centred on allegations that the defendant's solicitors and barristers had engaged in unprofessional conduct during the litigation process. The court was tasked with determining whether the conduct of the defendant's legal representatives warranted an award of costs and whether such costs could be attributed to the defendant.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence presented was sufficient to infer improper conduct on the part of the defendant's legal representatives. This required an examination of the behaviour of the solicitors and barristers involved and whether it fell below the standards expected in legal proceedings. The court needed to assess whether the conduct was such that it could be considered a contributing factor to the costs incurred by the plaintiff.

In examining the evidence, the court found that while there were instances of unprofessional conduct, they did not reach a level that could be deemed improper or warrant an award of costs against the defendant. The court held that the conduct, while regrettable, did not meet the threshold necessary to infer that it was a material factor in the costs incurred by the plaintiff. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for costs against the defendant. The court concluded that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the inference of improper conduct by the defendant's legal representatives.

Orders