Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (No 4)

This case involves the application by two respondents for an order for the solicitors representing the applicant, Mrs Young, to pay their costs on an indemnity basis in relation to an application for an extension of time to appeal filed on 9 June 2016. The application was made to the Federal Circuit Court. The legal issues before the court included whether the allegation of conspiracy was reasonable and if the application for costs was supported by evidence. The court also considered the admissibility of findings from previous judgments, particularly in relation to non-parties.

The court found that there was no reasonable basis for the allegation of conspiracy made by the solicitors in the application for an extension of time. This conclusion was based on the lack of evidence supporting the conspiracy claim. Additionally, the court found that the allegation of conspiracy was part of a broader pattern of misconduct by the solicitors, which justified the award of indemnity costs. The court examined the application of section 91(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and determined that the evidence from previous judgments was admissible in this case.

The court ordered that the solicitors, Leonardo Carlo Muriniti and Robert Duane Newell, jointly and severally pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the application for an extension of time, including the costs of the interlocutory application, on an indemnity basis. The court also granted liberty to the respondents to apply to extend the costs order if 'L C Muriniti & Associates' is found to be a legal entity.