Rita Cameron v Walker Legal - [2013] NSWSC 1985

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rita Cameron v Walker Legal [2013] NSWSC 1985
Hearing dates: 13 December 2012
Decision date: 31 December 2013
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
1. In proceedings number 2012/293348 the summons is dismissed with costs.
2. In proceedings number 2012/328671 the summons is dismissed with costs.

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - costs - application for leave to appeal from determination of Costs Review Panel - where jurisdiction vested in District Court - where application otherwise without merit - application for judicial review of decision by Manager, Costs Assessment refusing application for extension of time to apply for review by Costs Review Panel - where no basis shown to interfere with original decision - proceedings dismissed with costs
Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Act 1987
Legal Profession Act 2004
Supreme Court Act 1970
Cases Cited: Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd [2008] NSWCA 275
Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd [2010] NSWSC 899
Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd [2011] NSWSC 178
Cameron V Qantas Airways Ltd [2011] NSWCA 258
Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd [2011] NSWSC 1137
Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd [2011] NSWSC 1138
Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd [2011] NSWSC 1498
George Nassour v Anthony Mark Malouf [2011] NSWSC 356
Kioa v West [1985] HCA 81; (1985) 159 CLR 550
Levy v Bergseng [2008] NSWSC 294; (2008) 72 NSWLR 178
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rita Cameron (Plaintiff)
Stephen James Walker (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
S G Moffet (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Yeldham Price O'Brien Lusk (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2012/293348, 2012/328671
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: On 13 December 2012, the following matters were listed before me:

1. 2001/00092202 - RITA CAMERON v QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD

2. 2010/00118941 - RITA CAMERON v QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD

3. 2012/00293348 - RITA CAMERON v WALKER LEGAL

4. 2012/00328671 - RITA CAMERON v STEPHEN JAMES WALKER - WALKER LEGAL

The precise reasons why all of these matters were listed on that day was subject to some considerable doubt, as the transcript for the day somewhat uncomfortably discloses. However, as the following discussion reveals, only the two most recent proceedings commenced by Ms Cameron against Walker Legal in 2012 call for any detailed attention or consideration.

By way of background I note that I have already published several judgments in proceedings 2001/00092202. In Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd, published on 22 June 2011, I directed that Ms Cameron be paid, out of the funds in court following settlement of her claim against Qantas Airways Ltd, all monies other than an amount approximately representing the sum of contested but still then unassessed claims for costs against her. In Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd [2011] NSWSC 1137 published on 23 September 2011, I made orders for payment of sums due for legal costs and interest out of the remaining funds in court to certain solicitors who had acted for Ms Cameron. In Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd [2011] NSWSC 1138, also published on 23 September 2011, I dismissed a suite of claims made…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rita Cameron v Walker Legal 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NSWSC 1985
Decision Date: 31 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Rita Cameron, the applicant, who sought judicial review of a decision made by the Manager, Costs Assessment, regarding an application for an extension of time to apply for review by the Costs Review Panel. The decision was reviewed by the District Court of New South Wales. The applicant's primary contention was that the Manager, Costs Assessment, had erred in refusing her application for an extension of time to apply for review by the Costs Review Panel. This refusal was deemed to be without merit, and the applicant sought leave to appeal the determination of the Costs Review Panel.

The legal issues that the court had to address were whether the applicant had a valid basis for judicial review of the Manager's decision and whether there were any grounds to interfere with the original decision. The court considered the principles of judicial review and whether there were any errors in law or procedural unfairness in the Manager's decision. The applicant had to demonstrate that the Manager's decision was legally flawed or that there was a significant procedural defect that warranted judicial intervention.

The court determined that there was no basis to grant the application for judicial review. The decision of the Manager, Costs Assessment, was found to be legally sound, and no procedural unfairness was identified. The court held that the applicant had not shown any valid grounds for interference with the original decision. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings. The court concluded that the application was without merit and that there was no basis for granting leave to appeal the Costs Review Panel's determination.

Orders