Ryan v Vizovitis; Vizovitis v Ryan

[2020] ACTSC 150

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Ryan v Vizovitis; Vizovitis v Ryan

Citation:

[2020] ACTSC 150

Hearing Date:

9 June 2020

DecisionDate:

11 June 2020

Before:

Elkaim J

Decision:

See [39]

Catchwords:

CIVIL LAW – APPLICATION IN PROCEEDING – Costs – Fixed costs order – rule 1702 agreement – rule 1721 order

Legislation Cited:

Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) rr 6, 1702, 1720, 1721
Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) s 131

Cases Cited:

Ryan v Vizovitis [2017] ACTCA 3
Vitzovitis v Ryan [2014] ACTSC 243

Texts Cited:

David Hammerschlag, Hammerschlag’s Commercial Court Handbook (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2019)

Parties:

Georgia Vizovitis (Applicant)

Eunice Catherine Mary Ryan t/as Ryans Barristers and Solicitors (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

N Oram (Applicant)

J Burnside AO QC (Respondent)

Solicitors

McInnes Wilson Lawyers (Applicant)

Ryans Barristers and Solicitors (Respondent)

File Numbers:

ACTCA 52 of 2014; SC 694 of 2004

ELKAIM J:

1. There are two Applications in Proceeding before the Court. The first is in SC 694 of 2004 and the second in ACTCA 52 of 2014. Ms Georgia Vizovitis is the applicant in both applications. Ms Eunice Ryan trading as Ryans Barristers and Solicitors is the respondent in each application. I will accordingly refer to the parties as applicant and respondent respectively.

1. Although the two applications are in separate proceedings, no submission was made that there should be more than one decision. In addition, it is inherent in the arguments advanced by the parties that the two proceedings must be viewed together.

1. This saga commenced in 1994 when the applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident. She had another accident in 1996. She retained the respondent to act on her behalf in proceedings for damages arising from injuries she had received in the accidents.

1. I was informed that the damages proceedings were resolved on the second day of hearing.

1. After the proceedings were completed the applicant commenced an action against the respondent seeking a declaration that the costs agreements that had been executed by the parties was not binding upon them and sought damages.

1. Although the proceedings were commenced in 2004 it was not until 2010 that the hearing commenced before Master Harper. His Honour delivered the judgment in 2014 (Vitzovitis v Ryan [2014] ACTSC 243). The Court declared that the costs agreements were not binding and awarded damages to the applicant in the sum of $53,250. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant’s costs.

1. The respondent appealed, in 2015, but the appeal was dismissed, with costs, in 2017 (Ryan v Vizovitis [2017] ACTCA 3).

1. Since the dismissal of the appeal the parties have been engaged in an extended dispute concerning the quantum of the costs orders that had been made both at first instance and on appeal. The history of this dispute is set out in the two affidavits of Ms Shelley Mulherin affirmed on 12 May 2020. It is also described in the chronology which is Exhibit B.

1. The dispute seemed to have been resolved by an exchange…