Ramsay v Gatland [2022] NSWSC 1514

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ramsay v Gatland [2022] NSWSC 1514 Hearing dates: 1 November 2022 Date of orders: 7 November 2022 Decision date: 07 November 2022 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Schmidt AJ Decision: 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The usual costs order under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) is that they follow the event. In this case that is an order that Ms Ramsay and Mr Conolly pay Ms Gatland's costs, as agreed or assessed. 3. I understand that Ms Gatland may wish to be heard on the costs order. If she does not, I will make the usual order. If she does, she should approach within seven days to file and serve the orders which she seeks, together with short submissions. Within a further seven days Ms Ramsay and Mr Conolly should file and serve their short submissions and the parties should then indicate whether they wish further to be heard. Catchwords: COSTS — appeal from Local Court — barrister/solicitor — recovery — where barrister applied for costs assessment of unpaid invoices, some of which were brought out of time — Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014 (NSW), ss 194 and 198 — whether contractual claim for recovery of unpaid costs not assessed could still be pursued — Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014 (NSW), s 184 — whether legislative scheme precluded barrister's application to Local Court — not found — such recovery of unpaid costs permissible COSTS — Costs assessment — Determination — whether rejection of out of time application for costs assessment by the Manager, Costs Assessment and by a review panel resulted in a "costs determination" — Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW), s 73 — operation of statutory regime — functions of the Manager, Costs Assessment — functions of costs assessors and review panels — decision that application is out of time does not involve a "costs determination" CIVIL PROCEDURE — whether an abuse of process occurred in barrister bringing proceedings in Local Court for recovery of unpaid costs not assessed — whether risk of re-litigation exists — not found ESTOPPEL — where species of estoppel is unspecified — whether barrister estopped from bringing proceedings in Local Court for recovery of unpaid invoices not assessed because costs assessment application made out of time — not found Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 98 Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW), s 192 Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW), ss 331, 355 Legal Profession Uniform General Rules 2015 (NSW), Pt 4.3 Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014 (NSW), Divs 3, 4, ss 3, 6, 169, 172, 184, 194, 196, 198, 199, 200, 204 Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW), Pt 7, ss 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 78, 83, 84, 85, 87, 93B, 93C Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Regulation 2015 (NSW), Pt 5 Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), s 78 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.1 Cases Cited: Abdul-Rahman v WorkCover Authority of NSW (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1900 Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27 Branson v Tucker [2012] NSWCA 310 C Pty Ltd v Sommer (2021) 286 FCR 679; [2021] FCAFC 87 Carr v Western Australia (2007) 232 CLR 138; [2007] HCA 47 Carricks Ltd v Pizzaro (1995) 38 NSWLR 274 Gilles v Palmieri [2017] NSWCA 320 Herbert v Tamworth City Council (No 4) (2004) 60 NSWLR 476; [2004] NSWSC 394 Hunter Quarries Pty Ltd v Mexon (2018) 98 NSWLR 526; [2018] NSWCA 178 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28 UBS AG v Tyne (2018) 265 CLR 77; [2018] HCA 45 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Elizabeth Ramsay (First Plaintiff) Alan Robert Conolly (Second Plaintiff) Jill Gatland (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr J Sexton SC (Plaintiffs) Ms S Woodland (Defendant) Solicitors: Benson Law (Plaintiffs) Adams & Partners Lawyers (Defendant) File Number(s): 2022/122343 Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Local Court Jurisdiction: Civil Date of Decision: 1 April 2022 Before: Atkinson LCM File Number(s): 2020/00254063