Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Qasim v Bird & Ors (No 5) [2022] NSWSC 818 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 22 June 2022 Decision date: 22 June 2022 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Davies J Decision: The plaintiff is to pay the third defendant's costs of the notice of motion filed 9 April 2022. Catchwords: COSTS – where defendant successful on notice of motion to dismiss the proceedings – no question of principle Legislation Cited: Nil Cases Cited: Qasim v Bird & Ors (No 4) [2022] NSWSC 722 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Shaheen Qasim (Plaintiff) Stephen McNamee (Third Defendant) Representation: Counsel: In person (Plaintiff) A Avery-Williams (Third Defendant) Solicitors: Self-represented (Plaintiff) Slater & Gordon (Third Defendant) File Number(s): 2021/256942 Publication restriction: Nil Judgment 1. On 3 June 2022 I made orders dismissing the proceedings brought by the plaintiff against the third defendant: Qasim v Bird & Ors (No 4) [2022] NSWSC 722 2. I reserved the question of costs because the third defendant indicated that, if successful on his notice of motion, he would seek a lump sum costs order. I also made directions for the service of affidavits and submissions in relation to any application for a lump sum costs order. 3. On 10 June 2022 my Associate was notified by the solicitors for the third defendant that the third defendant sought costs on the ordinary basis only, that is, that costs should follow the event of the notice of motion. The plaintiff was copied into that email. The plaintiff had been given until 17 June 2022 to file and serve any affidavits and submissions in response to those received from the third defendant. 4. On 16 June 2022 the plaintiff forwarded an email to my associate which appeared to be her submissions in relation to the question of costs. In its entirety, the email said this: Dear madam I rely on my affidavit. The barrister lied about it all . There was no communication with McNamee's PA as alleged The emails have been crafted by McNamee . Just like his supervisors. The problem is that the judgement is replete with errors I need reasons for his judgement . He cannot say things like . He did . You cannot sue barristers , I am informed by a criminal barrister ex policeman that the barristers that lie to misleada court is a criminal offence . I spent enormous time preparing the six volumes . That were not even touched upon . McNamee's supervisors suddenly became interested as the judgement is replete with errors . I would appreciate practice notes for JA Davies . & I repeat I need reasons for my advisors . Sincerely SQ 1. The plaintiff does not put forward any reason to show why costs of the third defendant's notice of motion should not follow the event. 2. In the circumstances, the third defendant should have his costs of the notice of motion. 3. Accordingly, I make the following order: The plaintiff is to pay the third defendant's costs of the notice of motion filed 9 April 2022. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 22 June 2022