Stoltz v Peter Skidmore of Phoenix Legal Consulting Pty Limited [2021] NSWSC 1063

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Stoltz v Peter Skidmore of Phoenix Legal Consulting Pty Limited [2021] NSWSC 1063 Hearing dates: 24 August 2021 Decision date: 24 August 2021 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Adamson J Decision: (1) Grant leave to the plaintiff pursuant to s 198(4) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) (the Uniform Law) to apply for a costs assessment on the basis that it is just and fair for her application for assessment to be dealt with after the expiry of the 12-month period specified in s 198(3) of the Uniform Law. (2) The Court notes that the parties have reached a final agreement as to the terms of the costs assessment in dispute between them; and notes further that each party agrees to indemnify the other and release the other from all further claims arising from the costs assessment claim and costs agreement between them. (3) The Court notes that: (a) the final agreement is that the funds held on trust in ANZ controlled moneys account BSB xx10, account number xx86 on behalf of both parties by Genuine Legal Pty Ltd be distributed as follows. (b) payment of $45,000 to the office account of Phoenix Legal Consulting Pty Ltd. (c) payment of the remainder being $16,608.85 as at 23 August 2021 to the plaintiff within 14 days. (d) the Family Court of Australia made orders (order 36) on 3 May 2017 by which $61,241 of funds to be paid by way of property settlement to Ms Stoltz were to be paid into a controlled money account established by Ms Stoltz's then solicitors, Genuine Legal Pty Ltd, and those solicitors were and are restrained from disbursing those funds pending an assessment of costs between the wife and the intervener, Phoenix Legal Consulting Pty Ltd. (e) Ms Stoltz and Phoenix Legal Consulting Pty Ltd accept and agree that orders 3(b) and (c) above represent a final assessment of costs between them as referred to in order 36 of the orders of the Family Court of Australia dated 3 May 2017. Catchwords: COSTS — Costs assessment — Application for assessment — Timing — Application for extension of time — power to decide whether to extend time lies with the Manager, Costs Assessment — Manager did not treat the plaintiff's application as an application for an extension of time — Manager's decision construed as a constructive refusal to exercise jurisdiction — power of single judge to review acts and decision of the Manager — plaintiff's summons treated as an application for review of the Manager's constructive refusal — leave granted to apply for a costs assessment CIVIL PROCEDURE — Court administration — Overriding purpose — Just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56 Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW), s 198 Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW), ss 11, 93B Category: Principal judgment Parties: Nataliya Stoltz (Plaintiff) Peter Skidmore of Phoenix Legal Consulting Pty Limited (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: In person (Plaintiff) P Skidmore (Defendant)