Supreme Court Disallows Legal Practitioner's Costs Application
⚖️ Legal holding
Where a plaintiff is ordered to pay defendants' costs, the plaintiff's solicitor's costs of the costs application are disallowed as between the solicitor and plaintiff.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
📄 Read the full judgment⚖️ View on the official court website ↗
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The defendant argued that only 90% of the costs should be paid due to the plaintiff's solicitor's efforts being partially unnecessary.
- The court recognized that some costs would have been incurred regardless of the plaintiff's actions.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The plaintiff's solicitor argued that the costs application had a reasonable chance of success and thus should not incur full costs.
- The solicitor claimed that the costs should be limited to the extra costs caused by the criticized parts of the affidavits, suggesting a maximum of 50%.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the legal practitioner's costs of the costs application should be allowed and how much the practitioner should pay to the plaintiff.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to disallow the legal practitioner's costs of the costs application due to the practitioner's inappropriate conduct during the process.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 99 was applied in this decision.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the legal practitioner's admission of inappropriate conduct during the costs application process.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the legal practitioner who brought the costs application.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, the decision means that if they engage in inappropriate conduct during a costs application process, they may be required to pay a significant portion of the costs to the opposing party.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence and documents that mattered included the legal practitioner's affidavit and the court's assessment of the practitioner's conduct during the costs application process.