Muriniti v King; Newell v Hemmings

In *Muriniti v King* and *Newell v Hemmings*, the applicants, Mr Muriniti, L C Muriniti & Associates, and Mr Newell, sought leave to appeal against personal costs orders made against them as lawyers. The primary dispute concerned whether Lawcover Insurance Pty Ltd, which had determined it would not appeal the costs orders, should be joined as a respondent to the applications for leave to appeal, and whether the applicants were permanently restrained from pursuing their appeals. The proceedings were heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether Lawcover was a necessary party to the proceedings for the purpose of dismissing the summonses seeking leave to appeal, and whether the applicants had frustrated Lawcover's attempts to bring the applications to an end. The Court also considered the applicants' entitlement to conduct or prosecute an appeal in light of previous orders.

The Court reasoned that Lawcover was contractually entitled to conclude that it would not appeal the personal costs orders. It found that the applicants had frustrated Lawcover’s reasonable attempts to resolve the matter, justifying Lawcover's joinder as a respondent. The Court applied rules of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) to facilitate the dismissal of the summonses.

Consequently, the Court ordered that Lawcover Insurance Pty Ltd be joined as a respondent in both proceedings. The summonses seeking leave to appeal were dismissed. Furthermore, the applicants were ordered to pay the costs of Lawcover’s motion and the costs of all respondents to the applications for leave to appeal. The Registrar was directed to forward the papers to the Legal Services Commissioner for investigation into potential unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct by the applicants.