Lawrence v Sammut (No. 6) [2023] NSWSC 1569

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lawrence v Sammut (No. 6) [2023] NSWSC 1569 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 13 December 2023 Decision date: 13 December 2023 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Lonergan J Decision: The defendants' application for a gross sum costs order for costs of the notice of motion filed 7 August 2023 and the amended notice of motion filed 22 September 2023 is refused. Catchwords: COSTS – application for gross sum costs order – inadequate material provided by the applicant to allow the Court to do justice between the parties. Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Cases Cited: Bechara (t/as Bechara and Co) v Bates [2016] NSWCA 294 Harrison v Schipp (2002) 54 NSWLR 738; [2002] NSWCA 213 Lawrence v Sammut (No. 5) [2023] NSWSC 1476 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Wayne James Lawrence (Plaintiff) (Self-represented) Alice Alexandria Sammut (First Defendant) Paul William Ciantar (Second Defendant) Representation: Solicitors: McLean & Associates (Defendants) File Number(s): 2021/00057931 Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT 1. On 30 November 2023 I dismissed with costs the plaintiff's notices of motion filed on 7 August and 22 September 2023, and confirmed the Registrar's decision of 10 July 2023: Lawrence v Sammut (No. 5) [2023] NSWSC 1476. 2. In accordance with the timetable provided in that judgment, the defendants have made an application for a gross sum costs order by filing an affidavit of Karen McLean sworn 6 December 2023 together with written submissions of the same date. For reasons that remain unclear, affidavits of Ms McLean filed in February 2023 and June 2022 were also provided, but these predate the application for review of the Registrar's decision, and it is only the costs of that application for review and the associated notices of motion that are the subject of the costs order I made on 30 November 2023. 3. The plaintiff served his submissions in reply on 13 December 2023. He submitted a sum that he thought was fair - $13,563.00 - and pointed out that the defendants had exceeded the page limit for their submissions. There were other observations made that were not relevant.