S&A Law Pty Ltd v Pasquini - [2025] NSWSC 728

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: S&A Law Pty Ltd v Pasquini [2025] NSWSC 728
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 08 July 2025
Decision date: 08 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Commercial List
Before: Peden J
Decision:
Pursuant to s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), the defendant is to pay the plaintiff a specified gross sum of $20,000.00 for costs and disbursements of the proceedings, including the costs of this motion

Catchwords:
COSTS — application for a gross sum costs order — where plaintiff an incorporated legal practice acting for itself — where evidence before the Court insufficient to support extent of costs claimed — exercise of discretion to award discounted costs

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Birketu Pty Ltd v Atanaskovic [2025] HCA 2
Burrows v Macpherson & Kelly Lawyers (Sydney) Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 148
Hamod v New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375
Harrison v Schipp (2002) 54 NSWLR 738
Spencer v Coshott (2021) 106 NSWLR 84

Category: Costs
Parties: S&A Law Pty Limited (Plaintiff)
Oliver Pasquini (Defendant)
Representation: On the papers

File Number(s): 2024/00419896
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

S&A Law is an incorporated legal practice in New South Wales, which commenced proceedings against its former client and Mr Oliver Pasquini, a director of its former client, to recover unpaid costs. Mr Pasquini is a foreign national who does not reside in Australia. Mr Pasquini failed to respond to, or defend, the proceedings, and on 16 May 2025, Stevenson J entered default judgment against Mr Pasquini for $67,536.46 with interest, and ordered that Mr Pasquini pay S&A’s costs.
By notice of motion filed on 13 June 2025, S&A seeks a gross sum costs order pursuant to s 98(4)(c) Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) (CPA). It seeks its costs and disbursements of the proceedings of $32,143.12 and its costs of this motion of $3,089.25. It requested that its motion be determined on the papers.
I accept that S&A is entitled to its costs, and the case is an appropriate one for a gross sum costs order, although because of the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence supporting the amount of costs claimed, I consider that a global figure of $20,000 should be awarded.

Entitlement to a gross sum costs order

The principles concerning a gross sum costs order under s 98(4)(c) CPA are well known: see Hamod v New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375 (Hamod) at [813]-[820] (Beazley JA, as her Excellency then was, with whom Giles and Whealy JJA agreed). Factors relevant to the discretion to order costs in a gross sum include the capacity of the unsuccessful party to satisfy any costs liability, the complexity of the proceedings in relation to their cost, and the desirability to avoid the expense and delay associated with a contested costs assessment: Hamod at [816]-[817]. The Court may adopt a “broad brush” approach to quantification: Harrison v Schipp (2002) 54 NSWLR 738 at 743 (Giles JA);…

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 S&A Law Pty Ltd v Pasquini 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: [2025] NSWSC 728
Decision Date: 08 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of S&A Law Pty Ltd v Pasquini involved a legal practice incorporated as the plaintiff, who brought an action against Pasquini, the defendant. The primary dispute was regarding the costs associated with the legal proceedings, specifically the plaintiff's application for a gross sum costs order. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's costs were reasonable and necessary, given that the plaintiff was an incorporated legal practice acting on its own behalf. Additionally, the court had to assess the sufficiency of the evidence provided by the plaintiff to substantiate the extent of the claimed costs. The central issue was whether the plaintiff had adequately justified the amount of costs claimed, particularly in light of the need to exercise judicial discretion to award costs that were not grossly excessive.

In delivering its judgment, the court scrutinised the evidence provided by the plaintiff. It found that the plaintiff had not sufficiently demonstrated the reasonableness of the costs claimed. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the full extent of the costs claimed by the plaintiff. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to award discounted costs, reflecting the inadequacy of the evidence provided. This decision underscores the necessity for legal practitioners to substantiate their cost claims with comprehensive and convincing evidence when applying for a gross sum costs order.

The court's final order was that the plaintiff's costs were to be reduced to a level deemed reasonable and necessary by the court, reflecting the findings on the sufficiency of the evidence presented. This outcome highlights the importance of thorough documentation and justification of costs in legal proceedings.

Orders