Gibson v Minter Ellison Rudd Watts

The Court of Appeal heard an appeal from Mr Neville James Gibson against the judgment of the High Court dismissing his claim against Minter Ellison Rudd Watts (Minters). The claim arose out of a long running dispute between Mr Gibson and Arthur Andersen, an international accountancy firm. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the substantive judgment of the High Court but allowed the appeal against the costs judgment of the High Court. Mr Gibson was ordered to pay Minters $211,290, together with disbursements as fixed by the High Court, plus interest at 7.5% pa from 21 November 2005 to the date of this judgment. Mr Gibson was also ordered to pay Minters $20,000, together with usual disbursements, on this appeal. The Court of Appeal found that the judge was right to find that Mr Gibson was not eligible for legal aid on his claim against Arthur Andersen. The Court of Appeal found that the judge was right to find that Minters had not been affected by a conflict of interest. The Court of Appeal found that the judge was right to find that Minters had not been guilty of dilatoriness in prosecuting Mr Gibson’s claim against Arthur Andersen. The Court of Appeal found that the judge was right to find that Dr Patterson had not given an assurance of success. The Court of Appeal found that the judge adopted the wrong approach to the assessment of costs. The Court of Appeal recalculated the costs and ordered that Minters be paid $211,290.