Sukkar v Haoui (No.2)

[2022] NSWDC 115

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Sukkar v Haoui (No.2) [2022] NSWDC 115

Hearing dates:

On the papers

Date of orders:

14 April 2022

Decision date:

14 April 2022

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Before:

Abadee DCJ

Decision:

See paragraph 37

Catchwords:

COSTS – solicitor on the record for the plaintiff unsuccessfully applied for leave to withdraw representation with a hearing imminent – applicant joined to the application another firm which, it contended, acted for the plaintiff – the other firm appeared at the hearing – whether costs order should be made in favour of the other firm – whether applicant should be liable for the costs of the defendant and the other firm in opposing the application under s 99 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 56, 98, 99

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 42.1

Cases Cited:

Kelly v Jowett (2009) 76 NSWLR 405

Knight v FP Special Assets Ltd (1992) 174 CLR 178

Newell v De Costi (2018) 97 NSWLR 398

Pinebelt Pty Ltd v Bagley [2000] NSWSC 655

Re Felicity (No.4) [2015] NSWCA 19

Re Pan Pharmaceuticals Ltd; Selim v McGrath (2004) 48 ACSR 681; [2004] NSWSC 129

Sukkar v Haoui [2022] NSWDC 83

Texts Cited:

P. Taylor et al. Ritchie’s Uniform Civil Procedure (NSW)

Category:

Costs

Parties:

Prominent Lawyers (applicant)
M Haoui (defendant)
Stacks Goudkamp (interested party)

Representation:

Counsel:
Mr G Schipp for the applicant
Ms C Allan for the defendant
Mr B Jones for the interested party

Solicitors:
Prominent Lawyers for the applicant
Sparke Helmore for the defendant
Stacks Goudkamp for the interested party

File Number(s):

2019/00155429

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

Background

1. On 25 March 2022, whilst sitting as the List Judge, I dismissed an application by the solicitor on the record for the plaintiff, Mr Anthony Bazouni of the firm Prominent Lawyers, for leave to withdraw its representation. The application came before me because of an imminent hearing of the matter. The application was opposed by the defendant and Stacks Goudkamp, who was joined to the application as an ‘interested party’. The plaintiff herself was served with the motion but did not appear at the hearing of the application. As explained in my reasons for dismissing the application, I drew no inference adverse to her flowing from that non-appearance, particularly given the shortness of the period between the service of the motion and the hearing of it.

2. My reasons for dismissing the application have been published on Caselaw^[1] . I deferred consideration of the costs consequences of the dismissal of the application until after the hearing, partly to avoid distraction to the parties ahead of that hearing; but also partly because indications had been supplied during argument that a special costs order might be sought against the applicant on the motion and fairness required him the opportunity to consider such application and state his position. The parties were invited to supply the Court with written submissions on costs and I…