Rahman v Kent

[2019] NSWDC 694

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Rahman v Kent [2019] NSWDC 694
Hearing dates:	30 August 2019
Date of orders:	30 August 2019
Decision date:	30 August 2019
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	P Taylor SC DCJ
Decision:	(1)   Make orders 1 and 3 of the defendant's notice of motion filed 31 May 2019. (2)   Order the plaintiff to pay the costs of the proceedings. (3)   Dismiss the other motions in the proceedings.
Catchwords:	CIVIL PROCEDURE — pleadings — amendment – summons for leave to appeal CIVIL PROCEDURE — summary disposal — dismissal of proceedings — want of due despatch – non-compliance with directions – notice to produce – “fishing expedition”
Legislation Cited:	Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014, s 89
Cases Cited:	Ferella v Stomo [2017] NSWDC 34
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Fahmid Rahman (plaintiff) Rodney John Kent (defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Duc (plaintiff)   Solicitors: MIC Lawyers (plaintiff) Kent Attorneys (defendant)
File Number(s):	2018/228861
Publication restriction:	None

Judgment

1. The plaintiff, Fahmid Rahman, applies to file an amended summons. The defendant, Rodney Kent, applies to dismiss the proceedings for want of prosecution and for defaults in respect of directions, and alternatively, for the setting aside of a notice to produce issued by Mr Rahman.

2. Mr Rahman has filed a summons for leave to appeal and an appeal against a decision of a review panel upholding an assessment of costs in the amount of $12,215.50.  The summons was filed more than a year ago in July 2018.  Since then the matter has come before this Court before today on nine occasions, where directions have been made. On several occasions, Mr Rahman has not complied with directions, although sometimes those obligations have been superseded by subsequent directions. 

3. In submissions, Mr Rahman conceded that the proposed amended summons does not fairly and adequately raise his real complaint about the review panel's decision nor is there evidence on this application as to the real dispute.

4. The real dispute appears to be as follows: Mr Rahman says that several fixed price agreements in respect of costs were entered orally between him and Mr Kent and that Mr Rahman paid the moneys required under those agreements. According to Mr Rahman, Mr Kent allegedly said that certain amounts were payable for past costs, that amount was then paid in cash by Mr Rahman and thus Mr Rahman says past costs were fixed in the amount that had been paid.  Mr Rahman submitted that this amount was in the order of $12,000. 

5. Accordingly, there appears not to be a substantial dispute about the amount of costs of $12,215.50 determined by the review panel. But Mr Rahman says that the review panel did not take into account the fixed price agreements, nor the payments that he alleges he made. 

6. These proceedings are for an amount less than $25,000. In those circumstances, s 89 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 permits an appeal only with the leave of the Court.  Whether Mr Rahman should…