Voicu v The Owners-Strata Plan No 1624

In the case of Voicu v The Owners-Strata Plan No 1624, the applicant sought a review of a costs certificate issued by the Manager, Costs Assessment, under the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2015 (NSW). The applicant was dissatisfied with the outcome of the costs assessment and subsequently applied to the Manager for an extension of time to review the certificate. The applicant argued that the Manager had erred in applying the wrong legislative framework, specifically the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) instead of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2015 (NSW). The applicant contended that this error was material and warranted a review of the costs certificate.

The primary legal issues in the case revolved around the applicable legislative framework for costs assessment and the nature of the review process. The court had to determine whether the application to review the costs certificate was a proceeding under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) or an appeal, and whether the application was subject to the transitional provisions of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Regulation 2015 (NSW). Additionally, the court needed to assess the significance of the Manager's error in applying the wrong law and whether the applicant had demonstrated available grounds for review under the correct legislative framework.

The court found that the application to review the costs certificate was not an appeal but a proceeding under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). The court clarified that the term "proceeding" in the context of costs assessment did not encompass appeals. Furthermore, the court determined that the error by the Manager in applying the wrong law was not material, as the applicant did not demonstrate available grounds for review under the correct legislative framework. The court emphasised that the applicant's argument was more appropriately addressed as a matter of substantive costs assessment rather than a review under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).

The court dismissed the application for an extension of time to review the costs certificate and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the application. The court held that the applicant had not shown that the Manager's error in applying the wrong law warranted a review of the costs certificate, and therefore, the application was without merit.