PJM v AML (No 2)
Case
•
[2018] QSC 204
•6 September 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
PJM v AML (No 2) [2018] QSC 204
[2018] QSC 204
6 September 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of PJM v AML (No 2) involved an application for indemnity costs against the solicitors of the applicants, Shine Lawyers, by the respondents. The applicants had been successful in the principal application, but the court found there were shortcomings in the solicitors' work, which led to the respondents seeking indemnity costs and one respondent seeking fixed costs. The court was required to determine whether costs should be ordered against the applicants' solicitors, whether those costs should be fixed, and whether two counsel should be allowed. The court further had to assess the appropriate amount of costs, if any, to be awarded.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants' solicitors were liable for the costs incurred by the respondents due to the shortcomings identified. The court had to consider whether the shortcomings in the solicitors' work were sufficient to warrant an order for indemnity costs and, if so, whether the costs should be fixed. Additionally, the court had to decide whether two counsel should be allowed for the respondents given the nature of the application.
The court found that the applicants' solicitors were indeed liable for the respondents' costs due to the identified shortcomings. It determined that the costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis and fixed at $37,255.57 for the first respondent. For the second respondent, the costs of the application were to be assessed on the indemnity basis, or as agreed, excluding those costs already ordered on 27 June 2018. The court did not see grounds to allow two counsel for the respondents in this instance.
The final orders of the court were that the applicants' solicitors, Shine Lawyers, must pay the first respondent’s costs of the application on the indemnity basis, fixed at $37,255.57. For the second respondent, the costs of the application were to be assessed on the indemnity basis or as agreed, excluding those costs already ordered on 27 June 2018. No costs were awarded for two counsel.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants' solicitors were liable for the costs incurred by the respondents due to the shortcomings identified. The court had to consider whether the shortcomings in the solicitors' work were sufficient to warrant an order for indemnity costs and, if so, whether the costs should be fixed. Additionally, the court had to decide whether two counsel should be allowed for the respondents given the nature of the application.
The court found that the applicants' solicitors were indeed liable for the respondents' costs due to the identified shortcomings. It determined that the costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis and fixed at $37,255.57 for the first respondent. For the second respondent, the costs of the application were to be assessed on the indemnity basis, or as agreed, excluding those costs already ordered on 27 June 2018. The court did not see grounds to allow two counsel for the respondents in this instance.
The final orders of the court were that the applicants' solicitors, Shine Lawyers, must pay the first respondent’s costs of the application on the indemnity basis, fixed at $37,255.57. For the second respondent, the costs of the application were to be assessed on the indemnity basis or as agreed, excluding those costs already ordered on 27 June 2018. No costs were awarded for two counsel.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Indemnity Costs
-
Fixed Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
PJM v AML (No 2) [2018] QSC 204
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
1
PJM v AML
[2018] QSC 187
Mio Art Pty Ltd v Macequest Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2013] QSC 271
Hobbs v Oildrive (No 2)
[2008] QSC 52