Tetbury Pty Limited v John Francis Mahony trading as Mahony Law [2021] NSWDC 691

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Tetbury Pty Limited v John Francis Mahony trading as Mahony Law [2021] NSWDC 691 Hearing dates: 20 October 2021; submissions to 9 November 2021 Date of orders: 14 December 2021 Decision date: 14 December 2021 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Gibson DCJ Decision: Order: (1) Pursuant to UCPR r 50.12(2), extend time to the plaintiff to appeal under s 384 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) from the determination of Bruce William Bentley dated 26 February 2020 and the costs assessment of Bruce William Bentley dated 27 July 2020. (2) Judgment for the defendant. (3) Plaintiff pay defendant's costs, with liberty to apply. Catchwords: COSTS – appeal under s 384 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) – client pays counsels' fees but only $10,000 of the solicitor's costs – instead of seeking assessment, solicitor brings proceedings in the District Court which are dismissed by consent – costs assessor rejects arguments that the solicitor's costs are no longer payable because of the bringing of the District Court proceedings - appeal from reasons for determination by the costs assessor on the grounds that there were no costs in dispute, that the costs assessor accordingly lacked jurisdiction, that the proceedings were an abuse of process and that that res judicata, issue estoppel and/or Anshun estoppel applied – "approbate and reprobate" – nature of costs assessment system as explained in Branson v Tucker [2012] NSWCA 310 - appeal dismissed Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) ss 352, 359, 361(1), 384 and 385 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 56 and 91 Cases Cited: Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) (2006) 226 CLR 256 Bellevarde Constructions Pty Ltd v CPC Energy Pty Ltd (2011) 12 DCLR (NSW) 304 Branson v Tucker [2012] NSWCA 310 Cannuli v Cannuli [2018] NSWSC 937 Clayton v Brant (2020) 95 ALJR 34 Coshott v Barry [2012] NSWSC 850 D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1 Elder's Trustee and Executor Co Ltd v Commonwealth Homes and Investment Co Ltd (1941) 65 CLR 603 Gorczynski v AWM Dickinson & Son [2005] NSWSC 277 Grundt v Great Boulder Pty Gold Mines Limited [1937] 59 CLR 641 Livingstone v Mitchell [2020] NSWSC 1464 Mandurah Enterprises Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission (2008) 38 WAR 276 Morvatjou v Moradkhani [2013] NSWCA 157 Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589 Quanta Software International Pty Ltd v Quanta Systems Ltd [2004] FCA 1182 Reznitsky v District Court of New South Wales [2015] NSWCA 194 Thompson v Palmer (1933) 49 CLR 507 Tjiong v Tjiong [2021] NSWSC 1389 VACC Insurance v BP Australia [1999] NSWCA 427; (1997) 47 NSWLR 716. Weldon v Levitt [2017] FCCA 3702 WKA Legal Pty Ltd v Gleeson [2018] NSWDC 73 Texts Cited: R Chisholm, "Exclusion of evidence inconsistent with earlier statements: the rise and fall of the Elias principle", (2001) 15 A J Family Law 1 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Plaintiff: Tetbury Pty Limited Defendant: John Francis Mahony trading as Mahony Law Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff: Mr M Gracie Defendant: Mr A Maroya