District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Vumbaca v Sultana [2012] NSWDC 237 Hearing dates: 11 and 14 December 2012 Decision date: 14 December 2012 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Gibson DCJ Decision: (1) Summons dismissed.
(2) Plaintiff pay defendant's costs.
(3) Liberty to restore in relation to costs.
(4) Exhibits retained for 28 days.
Catchwords: COSTS ASSESSMENT - appeal from Costs Review Panel's dismissal of appeal from Costs Assessor of party/party costs payable pursuant to court orders - nature of costs assessment and appeal process - whether errors asserted to have been made were errors of law - jurisdiction of District Court - appeal dismissed Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW), ss 384 and 385
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 33.4 and 42.7Cases Cited: AON Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; (2009) 258 ALR 14; (2009) 83 ALJR 951; [2009] HCA 27
Attorney-General of New South Wales v Kennedy Miller Television Pty Ltd (1998) 43 NSWLR 729
Bellevarde Constructions Pty Ltd v CPC Energy Pty Ltd (2011) 12 DCLR (NSW) 304; [2011] NSWDC 55
Challen v Paul O'Halloran & Associates [2008] WASC 169
Crooke v David Crooke Pty Ltd (Supreme Court of NSW, Master Malpass, 12 April 1996)
CSR Ltd v Eddy (2008) 70 NSWLR 725; [2008] NSWCA 83
Davis v Dysart (Earl) (No 2) (1855) 21 Beav 124; (1855) 52 ER 805
Dayeian v Davidson (2010) 76 NSWLR 512; [2010] NSWCA 42
Edyp v Brazbuild Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 218
Florence Investments Pty Ltd v HG Slater & Co [1975] 2 NSWLR 398
Frumar v the Owners of Strata Plan 36957 (2006) 67 NSWLR 321; [2006] NSWCA 278
Gorczynski v AWM Dickinson and Son [2005] NSWSC 277
Honest Remark Pty Ltd v Allstate Explorations NL [2008] NSWSC 439
Howard & Ors v Mechtler & Ors [2000] NSWSC 455
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd t/as Home Owners Warranty (2010) 241 CLR 390; (2010) 270 ALR 228; (2010) 84 ALJR 663; [2010] HCA 32
Larsen v Vile [1999] NSWCA 397
Levy v Bergseng [2008] NSWSC 294
Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 510
Moon v Woodward [1991] TASSC 35
Obieta v Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal (NSW) [2009] NSWCA 220
Peter Breese & Associates Pty Ltd v CCI Holdings Ltd (2004) 2 DCLR (NSW) 157
Re Bauhaus Pyrmont Pty Ltd (2006) 67 NSWLR 289; [2006] NSWSC 879
Skalkos v Assaf [2002] NSWSC 1221
Strangas & Son Building Contractors Pty Ltd v Lim (2012) 14 DCLR (NSW) 222; [2012] NSWDC 72
Turner v Pride [1999] NSWSC 850
Wentworth v Rogers (2006) 66 NSWLR 474; [2006] NSWCA 145
Woodward v Moon [1991] Tas R 93
Yazbeck v Abreu (2010) 11 DCLR (NSW) 43; [2010] NSWDC 113Texts Cited: G. E. Dal Pont, Law of Costs (2nd ed, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2009)
M Wilson, "How…
Continue reading Vumbaca v Sultana
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Vumbaca v Sultana [2012] NSWDC 237
- Case
- [2012] NSWDC 237
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The plaintiff, Vumbaca, appealed against a decision of the Costs Review Panel which dismissed an appeal against a Costs Assessor's determination of costs payable by the plaintiff under a court order. The dispute centred around the assessment of costs between the plaintiff and the defendant, Sultana. The case was heard in the District Court of a state in Australia.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the errors alleged by the plaintiff in the Costs Assessor's determination were errors of law, which would have allowed the appeal to proceed. The court had to consider the nature of the costs assessment and the process for appealing such a determination. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
The court found that the errors alleged by the plaintiff were not errors of law but rather errors of fact or judgment, which are not grounds for appeal to the Costs Review Panel. The court held that the nature of the costs assessment and the appeal process did not permit appeals based on factual errors or differences in judgment. The court further noted that the jurisdiction to hear such appeals was limited to errors of law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original costs order was upheld. The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs and retained the exhibits for 28 days.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the errors alleged by the plaintiff in the Costs Assessor's determination were errors of law, which would have allowed the appeal to proceed. The court had to consider the nature of the costs assessment and the process for appealing such a determination. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
The court found that the errors alleged by the plaintiff were not errors of law but rather errors of fact or judgment, which are not grounds for appeal to the Costs Review Panel. The court held that the nature of the costs assessment and the appeal process did not permit appeals based on factual errors or differences in judgment. The court further noted that the jurisdiction to hear such appeals was limited to errors of law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original costs order was upheld. The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs and retained the exhibits for 28 days.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Summons dismissed.
(2) Plaintiff pay defendant's costs.
(3) Liberty to restore in relation to costs.
(4) Exhibits retained for 28 days.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.