Steindl Nominees Pty Ltd v Laghaifar - [2003] QCA 157

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Steindl Nominees P/L v Laghaifar [2003] QCA 157

PARTIES:

STEINDL NOMINEES PTY LTD ACN 063 915 935
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
SOHAIL LAGHAIFAR
(defendant/applicant)

FILE NO:

Appeal No 9565 of 2002
SC No 7276 of 1999

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension of Time - Further Order

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

Judgment delivered 18 February 2003
Further Order delivered 17 April 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 February 2003

JUDGES:

Davies and Williams JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

FURTHER ORDER:

1. Dismiss the application for costs against Andrew Wrenn
2. Order that the sum of $5,000 paid into court by Sohail Laghaifar pursuant to the order of Mackenzie J made on 17 January 2003 be paid out of court to Steindl Bell, Solicitors for Steindl Nominees Pty Ltd

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE - COSTS - DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE - ORDER FOR COSTS ON INDEMNITY BASIS - where applicant applied for an extension of time within which to appeal - where respondent sought order for costs on an indemnity basis from counsel - whether counsel unreasonably pursued the application in circumstances in which his conduct in doing so, justified a costs order - whether allegations of falsehood in submissions were allegations of dishonesty recklessly made and sufficient to justify a costs order

Queensland Barristers' Rules r 18, r 19

Giannarelli v Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543, applied

Levick v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2000] FCA 674, applied

Medcalf v Mardell [2003] 1 AC 120, considered
Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205, distinguished

White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Flower and Hart (a firm) (1998) 156 ALR 169, applied

COUNSEL:

A C Wrenn for the applicant

C L Francis for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Steindl Bell (Benowa) for the respondent

Carter Newell Solicitors for A C Wrenn

DAVIES JA: This is an application by Steindl Nominees Pty Ltd ("Steindl") for an order that Mr Wrenn ("Wrenn"), a barrister, pay the costs of Steindl, on an indemnity basis, of an application to this Court for an extension of time within which to appeal to it. That application, in turn, had been made by Sohail Laghaifar ("Laghaifar") against whom, on 9 January 2002 an order had been made dismissing an application to set aside a judgment by default which had been obtained against Laghaifar by Steindl on 22 September 1999. Laghaifar's application to this Court was an application for an extension of time within which to appeal against the order of 9 January 2002. He was represented on that application by Wrenn. The application was dismissed on 18 February 2003 with costs on an indemnity basis.

In that application Steindl had also sought an order for costs against Wrenn personally, also on an indemnity basis. Upon the hearing in this Court on 18 February that application was adjourned…

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 Steindl Nominees Pty Ltd v Laghaifar 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: [2003] QCA 157
Decision Date: 18 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Steindl Nominees Pty Ltd v Laghaifar, the applicant sought an extension of time within which to appeal a decision, and the respondent sought an order for costs on an indemnity basis from the applicant's counsel. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the applicant's counsel unreasonably pursued the application for an extension of time, warranting a costs order on an indemnity basis. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the allegations of falsehoods made by the applicant's counsel in the submissions were reckless enough to justify such a costs order.

The court considered the Queensland Barristers' Rules and various precedent cases, including Giannarelli v Wraith, Levick v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, Medcalf v Mardell, Ridehalgh v Horsefield, and White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Flower and Hart. It found that the applicant's counsel unreasonably pursued the application and that the allegations of falsehoods in the submissions were recklessly made. The court held that the conduct of the applicant's counsel justified an order for costs on an indemnity basis. The allegations of dishonesty made by the respondent were found to be sufficient to support such an order.

In conclusion, the court found in favour of the respondent and ordered the applicant to pay costs on an indemnity basis. The court's decision was based on the unreasonable conduct of the applicant's counsel and the recklessly made allegations of dishonesty in the submissions. The court's ruling emphasised the importance of upholding the integrity of legal proceedings and the need to hold parties accountable for their conduct.

Orders