Qasim v Bird (No 5)

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Qasim v Bird & Ors (No 5) [2022] NSWSC 818
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 22 June 2022
Decision date: 22 June 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Davies J
Decision:
The plaintiff is to pay the third defendant’s costs of the notice of motion filed 9 April 2022.

Catchwords:
COSTS – where defendant successful on notice of motion to dismiss the proceedings – no question of principle

Legislation Cited:
Nil

Cases Cited:
Qasim v Bird & Ors (No 4) [2022] NSWSC 722

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Shaheen Qasim (Plaintiff)
Stephen McNamee (Third Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
In person (Plaintiff)
A Avery-Williams (Third Defendant)
Solicitors:
Self-represented (Plaintiff)
Slater & Gordon (Third Defendant)

File Number(s): 2021/256942
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

On 3 June 2022 I made orders dismissing the proceedings brought by the plaintiff against the third defendant: Qasim v Bird & Ors (No 4) [2022] NSWSC 722
I reserved the question of costs because the third defendant indicated that, if successful on his notice of motion, he would seek a lump sum costs order. I also made directions for the service of affidavits and submissions in relation to any application for a lump sum costs order.
On 10 June 2022 my Associate was notified by the solicitors for the third defendant that the third defendant sought costs on the ordinary basis only, that is, that costs should follow the event of the notice of motion. The plaintiff was copied into that email. The plaintiff had been given until 17 June 2022 to file and serve any affidavits and submissions in response to those received from the third defendant.
On 16 June 2022 the plaintiff forwarded an email to my associate which appeared to be her submissions in relation to the question of costs. In its entirety, the email said this:

Dear madam
I rely on my affidavit. The barrister lied about it all . There was no communication with McNamee’s PA as alleged
The emails have been crafted by McNamee . Just like his supervisors.
The problem is that the judgement is replete with errors
I need reasons for his judgement .
He cannot say things like . He did . You cannot sue barristers ,
I am informed by a criminal barrister ex policeman that the barristers that lie to misleada court is a criminal offence .
I spent enormous time preparing the six volumes . That were not even touched upon .
McNamee’s supervisors suddenly became interested as the judgement is replete with errors .
I would appreciate practice notes for JA Davies . & I repeat I need reasons for my advisors .
Sincerely
SQ

The plaintiff does not put forward any reason to show why costs of the third defendant’s notice of motion should not follow the event.
In the circumstances, the third defendant should have his costs of the notice of motion.
Accordingly, I make the following order:

The plaintiff is to pay the third defendant’s costs of the notice of motion filed 9 April 2022.

**********

In the case of Qasim v Bird, the parties were the plaintiff, Qasim, and the defendant, Bird. The dispute revolved around a notice of motion to dismiss the plaintiff's proceedings against the defendant. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought an order for the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion. The defendant successfully opposed the motion to dismiss the proceedings.

The legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff was entitled to an order for the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion, and whether the case involved a question of principle. The court considered the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and previous cases on the issue of costs in successful defences of motions to dismiss. The court also considered whether the case involved a question of principle that would warrant the award of costs against the defendant.

The court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to an order for the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion. The court held that the case did not involve a question of principle, and that the plaintiff's proceedings were not vexatious or frivolous. The court noted that the defendant had succeeded in opposing the motion to dismiss the proceedings, and that the plaintiff's claim had not been entirely without merit. The court held that the plaintiff's costs of the motion should be paid by the plaintiff, and that there was no basis for awarding costs against the defendant. The court made no order for the plaintiff's costs of the motion.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Medium Neutral Citation:	Qasim v Bird & Ors (No 5) [2022] NSWSC 818
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Date of orders:	22 June 2022
Decision date:	22 June 2022
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Davies J
Decision:	The plaintiff is to pay the third defendant’s costs of the notice of motion filed 9 April 2022.
Catchwords:	COSTS – where defendant successful on notice of motion to dismiss the proceedings – no question of principle
Legislation Cited:	Nil
Cases Cited:	Qasim v Bird & Ors (No 4) [2022] NSWSC 722
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Shaheen Qasim (Plaintiff) Stephen McNamee (Third Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: In person (Plaintiff) A Avery-Williams (Third Defendant) Solicitors: Self-represented (Plaintiff) Slater & Gordon (Third Defendant)
File Number(s):	2021/256942
Publication restriction:	Nil