Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Rodi v Gelonesi [2016] NSWCA 348 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 13 December 2016 Decision date: 13 December 2016 Before: Meagher JA at [1]; Gleeson JA at [2]; Payne JA at [3]. Decision: Dismiss the amended notice of motion filed on 8 November 2016 with costs.
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – variation of costs order – application for leave to appeal in 2012 – leave refused with costs – application in 2016 under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 36.16 for personal costs order against solicitor who acted for unsuccessful party – whether 14-day time limit in sub-r (3A) precluded application – whether application for variation of orders
COSTS – whether to make personal costs order under ss 98 or 99 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) – discretionary factors – delayLegislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 98, 99
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 135
Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 36.11, 36.16Cases Cited: Australian Hardboards Ltd v Hudson Investment Group Ltd (2007) 70 NSWLR 201; [2007] NSWCA 104
Bartlett v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (No 2) [2016] NSWCA 142
Caboolture Park Shopping Centre P/L (In Liquidation) and White Industries (QLD) P/L v Flower & Hart (A Firm) (1993) 117 ALR 253
Hancock v Arnold; Dodd v Arnold (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 19
Lemoto v Able Technical Pty Ltd (2005) 63 NSWLR 300; [2005] NSWCA 153
Road and Traffic Authority of NSW v Palmer (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 140
Rodi v Gelonesi [2012] NSWCA 424
Short v Crawley (No 45) [2013] NSWSC 1541
Xabregas v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 79205; Moallem v Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal & Ors (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1027Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Dominic Rodi (first appellant)
Forest Way Fruit Stall Pty Ltd (second appellant)
Bruno Gelonesi (first respondent / applicant on the motion)
Leonardo Carlo Muriniti (respondent on the motion)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
- Appellants not participating
- R M Jefferis (16 June 2016 submissions) / M Wright (8 November and 1 December 2016 submissions) (applicant on the motion)
- D A Lloyd (respondent on the motion)
- Appellants not participating
- GP Legal (applicant on the motion)
- Yeldham Price O’Brien Lusk (respondent on the motion)
File Number(s): 2012/176970 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court of NSW
- Jurisdiction:
- Civil
- Date of Decision:
- 11 May 2012
- Before:
- Olsson SC DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 08/317684
Judgment
-
MEAGHER JA: I agree with Payne JA.
-
GLEESON JA: It may be assumed without deciding that the power in Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.16(3) can be relied upon by the respondent, Mr Gelonesi, to seek a personal costs order against the applicant’s solicitor, Mr Muriniti, more than three years after the making of orders by this Court disposing of the summons seeking leave to appeal to this Court. Nonetheless, for…
Continue reading Rodi v Gelonesi
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Rodi v Gelonesi [2016] NSWCA 348
- Case
- [2016] NSWCA 348
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal was required to determine two primary legal issues. First, whether the 14-day time limit stipulated in subrule 36.16(3A) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) precluded the applicant's application for a personal costs order. Second, the Court had to consider whether to make a personal costs order against the solicitor pursuant to sections 98 or 99 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), taking into account relevant discretionary factors, including the significant delay in bringing the application.
The Court reasoned that the application for a personal costs order was out of time, as it was made significantly beyond the 14-day period prescribed by rule 36.16(3A). The Court noted that while rule 36.16 permits variations of orders, the specific subrule governing applications for personal costs orders against legal practitioners imposed a strict time limit. The Court also considered the discretionary factors, including the substantial delay in bringing the application, which weighed against granting the relief sought.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the amended notice of motion filed on 8 November 2016 and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Dismiss the amended notice of motion filed on 8 November 2016 with costs.
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.