Beazley P at [1]; McColl JA at [55]; Gleeson JA at [56]
Decision:
(1) Sophia Wilkie pay Michael Brown’s costs of her summons seeking judicial review in the sum of $5,161.20, in addition to any costs orders previously made. (2) Notice of motion dated 26 April 2016 otherwise dismissed.
Catchwords:
COSTS – solicitor acting in person – whether exception to general rule that litigant in person not entitled to costs for time spent in preparation of case
COSTS – gross sum costs order – whether order appropriate – whether quantum reasonable
Sophia Wilkie (Applicant) Michael Neil Brown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel: Mr M Darvill (solicitor) (Applicant) In person (Respondent)
Solicitors: Slattery Thompson (Applicant) In person (Respondent)
File Number(s):
2015/202870
Decision under appeal
Court or tribunal:
District Court
Date of Decision:
9 June 2015
Before:
Maiden DCJ
File Number(s):
2015/74248
Headnote
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
The applicant sought judicial review of a costs assessment in respect of legal services provided to her by the respondent, her former solicitor. The day before the hearing of the applicant’s summons in this Court, she indicated that she intended to withdraw her application. The respondent, who acted in person in this Court, filed a notice of motion seeking his costs of the summons by way of a gross sum, including costs for the professional work he performed on the matter.
[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.
Continue reading Wilkie v Brown
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Wilkie v Brown [2016] NSWCA 128
Case
[2016] NSWCA 128
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Sophia Wilkie sought judicial review of a decision made by Michael Brown. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, comprising Beazley P, McColl and Gleeson JJA.
The primary legal issues before the Court were whether a solicitor acting in person was entitled to recover costs for the time spent preparing their case, and whether a gross sum costs order was appropriate and reasonable in quantum.
The Court considered the general rule that a litigant in person is not entitled to recover costs for their own time spent on preparing a case. However, it acknowledged an exception where the litigant is a solicitor who has acted in person. The Court found that the respondent, Mr Brown, was entitled to recover costs for his preparation time. In determining the quantum of the costs, the Court considered the reasonableness of the amount claimed and ultimately made a gross sum costs order.
The Court ordered that Sophia Wilkie pay Michael Brown’s costs of her summons seeking judicial review in the sum of $5,161.20, in addition to any costs orders previously made. The notice of motion dated 26 April 2016 was otherwise dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Sophia Wilkie pay Michael Brown’s costs of her summons seeking judicial review in the sum of $5,161.20, in addition to any costs orders previously made.
(2) Notice of motion dated 26 April 2016 otherwise dismissed.