Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Rahman v Al-Maharmeh (No 2) [2021] NSWCA 151 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 21 July 2021 Decision date: 21 July 2021 Before: Meagher JA at [1];
Leeming JA at [2];
Brereton JA at [3].Decision: (1) As between the appellant and the respondent, make no order as to costs of the proceedings in the District Court on the appellant’s motion filed 3 October 2019 and the respondent’s motion filed 28 August 2019, or of the proceedings in this Court, to the intent that each party bear its own costs; and
(2) Pursuant to (NSW) Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 99, order that all costs and disbursements (including counsel’s fees) of the proceedings referred to in order (1) be disallowed as between Prominent Lawyers and the appellant, to the intent that the disbursements (including counsel’s fees) are to be borne by Prominent Lawyers.
Catchwords: COSTS – Party/Party – Appeals – Appeal against refusal of leave to commence proceedings out of time – Delay attributable to appellant’s solicitors – Unsatisfactory explanation for delay – Respondent opposed application and led court below into error – Costs not sought by respondent against appellant – No order as to costs between parties
COSTS – Appeals – Orders against non-parties – Personal costs orders against lawyers – As between respondent and appellant’s solicitors – Solicitors acted negligently – Respondent increased costs considerably by opposing application – Orders not made
COSTS – Appeals – Orders against non-parties – Personal costs orders against lawyers – As between appellant and appellant’s solicitors – Costs incurred without reasonable cause – Relevance of undertaking by solicitors to not seek costs against appellant – Orders made
Legislation Cited: (NSW) Civil Procedure Act 2005, ss 98, 99
(NSW) Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, s 109
Cases Cited: Felicity, Re; FM v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (No 4) [2015] NSWCA 19
Kelly v Jowett (2009) 76 NSWLR 405; [2009] NSWCA 278
Lemoto v Able Technical Pty Ltd (2005) 63 NSWLR 300;[2005] NSWCA 153
Rahman v Al-Maharmeh (2021) 95 MVR 394; [2021] NSWCA 31
Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205; 3 All ER 848
Category: Costs Parties: Samar Abdul Rahman (Appellant)
Sarah Al-Maharmeh (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
J Morris SC, G Schipp (Appellant)
J Turnbull SC (Respondent)
L Williams, solicitor (Prominent Lawyers)
Prominent Lawyers (Appellant)
Moray & Agnew (Respondent)
K&L Gates (Prominent Lawyers)
File Number(s): 2020/147838 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Civil
- Citation:
- Date of Decision:
- 20 April 2020
- Before:
- Wilson SC DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2019/190375
HEADNOTE
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
On 15 March 2021, the Court granted leave to appeal and allowed an appeal by the appellant from a refusal of her application for leave to commence proceedings after the expiration of the limitation period fixed by Motor…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Rahman v Al-Maharmeh (No 2) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] NSWCA 151
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether to grant leave to commence proceedings out of time, and importantly, the appropriate orders for costs. This included considering whether personal costs orders should be made against the appellant's solicitors, both as between the respondent and the solicitors, and as between the appellant and the solicitors.
The Court found that the delay in commencing proceedings was unsatisfactory and not adequately explained. While the respondent had opposed the application, thereby increasing costs, the Court declined to make a personal costs order against the respondent. However, the Court determined that the appellant's solicitors had acted negligently and incurred costs without reasonable cause. Despite an undertaking by the solicitors not to seek costs against the appellant, the Court made orders for costs as between the appellant and their solicitors.
Orders
Orders of the court
27.
The following orders should be made:
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.