Rahme v Kekatos Lawyers Pty Ltd

Rahme (the applicant) sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the primary judge concerning legal costs. The applicant had previously been represented by Kekatos Lawyers Pty Ltd (the respondent) in litigation. Following that litigation, the applicant recovered their legal costs from a third party in the Court of Appeal. Subsequently, the applicant argued that they were not liable to pay the respondent for those costs. The respondent sought payment for their legal services.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the applicant had established grounds for leave to appeal. Specifically, the court considered whether the applicant's submissions raised any point of principle or general importance, or disclosed any substantial injustice. The court also considered whether any potential success for the applicant would have any practical effect.

The Court of Appeal found that the applicant's submissions did not meet the threshold for granting leave to appeal. The court concluded that the applicant's arguments did not raise any novel legal issues or demonstrate a substantial injustice that warranted appellate intervention. Furthermore, the court determined that even if the applicant were successful, it would not alter the practical outcome of the matter.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs, including the costs associated with a draft notice of contention.