NSW Caselaw
Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Atanaskovic v Birketu Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCA 312 Hearing dates: 1 May 2023 Date of orders: 15 December 2023 Decision date: 15 December 2023 Before: Ward P at [1]; Kirk JA at [167]; Simpson AJA at [312] Decision: 1. If leave be necessary, grant leave to appeal. 2. Appeal allowed. 3. Set aside the orders made by the primary judge on 26 October 2022 and in lieu thereof make the following orders: (a) The summons filed on 2 August 2022 is dismissed. (b) The plaintiffs are to pay the defendants' costs. 4. The first and second respondents are to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal. Catchwords: COSTS – General rule that self-represented litigants cannot recover costs for their own time – Chorley exception – Impact of Bell Lawyers v Pentelow on litigants recouping costs of employed solicitors – Inclusion of "remuneration" in definition of "costs" in the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) – Where the litigant party has obtained a costs order in their favour – Where the litigant party is also the solicitor on the record – Whether an unincorporated law firm litigant is entitled to recover costs for work done by its employed solicitors during the litigation JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS — Court of Appeal — Review of previous decision of another intermediate Court of Appeal — Whether previous decision interpreted what the High Court said or developed the common law — Court of Appeal not bound by a coordinate court's interpretation of what the High Court said Legislation Cited: Act Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 3, 98 Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW), ss 32, 74 Statute of Gloucester (1278) 6 Edw 1 c 1 Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101 Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), ss 3, 24 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), Pt 42 Cases Cited: Archer Capital 4A Pty Ltd as trustee for the Archer Capital Trust 4A v Sage Group Plc (No 2) [2013] FCA 1098; (2013) 306 ALR 384 Atanaskovic v Birketu Pty Ltd – Costs [2020] NSWSC 779 Atanaskovic v Birketu Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1006 Atanaskovic v Birketu Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 573Attorney-General v Shillibeer (1849) 4 Ex 606 [154 ER 1356] Australian Securities Commission v Marlborough Gold Mines Ltd (1993) 177 CLR 485; [1993] HCA 15 Banksia Securities Limited v The Trust Company (Nominees) Ltd [2017] VSC 583 Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow (2019) 269 CLR 333; [2019] HCA 29 Birketu v Castagnet [2022] NSWSC 1435 Burrows v MacPherson & Kelley Lawyers (Sydney) Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 148 Cachia v Hanes (1994) 176 CLR 403; [1994] HCA 14 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Hattersley (2001) 51 NSWLR 333; [2001] NSWCA 60 Coshott v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2020] NSWCA 279 Coshott v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2020] NSWSC 503 Coshott v Spencer [2019] HCATrans 183 Day v Ocean Beach Hotel Shellharbour Pty Ltd (2013) 85 NSWLR 335; [2013] NSWCA 250 Dyktynski v BHP Titanium Minerals Pty Ltd (2004) 60 NSWLR 203; [2004] NSWCA 154 Ex parte King; Re Blackley (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 483 Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89; [2007] HCA 22 Galloway v Corporation of London (1867) LR 4 Eq 90 Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 395; [1998] HCA 48 Gugy v Brown (1867) LR 1 PC 411 Guneser v Aitken Partners Pty Ltd [2020] VSC 329 Guss v Veenhuizen (No 2) (1976) 136 CLR 47; [1976] HCA 57 Hasler v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd; Curtis v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd; Singtel Optus Pty Ltd v Almad Pty Ltd (2014) 87 NSWLR 609; [2014] NSWCA 266 Henderson v Merthyr Tydfil Urban District Council [1900] 1 QB 434 Hill v Zuda Pty Ltd (2022) 275 CLR 24; [2022] HCA 21 Hofer v The Queen (2021) 274 CLR 351; [2021] HCA 36 In re Eastwood (deceased) [1975] Ch 112 Irving v Gagliardi; Ex parte Gagliardi (No 2) (1895) 6 QLJ 200 Jaycar Pty Ltd v Lombardo [2011] NSWCA 284 Jervis v Dewes (1836) 4 Dowl 764 John Alexander's Clubs Pty Ltd v White City Tennis Club Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 1; [2010] HCA 19 Kelly v Jowett (2009) 76 NSWLR 405; [2009] NSWCA 278 Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534; [1990] HCA 59 Leaver v Whalley (1833) 2 Dowl 80 London Scottish Benefit Society v Chorley (1884) 13 QBD 872 Ly v Jenkins (2001) 114 FCR 237; [2001] FCA 1640 Maher v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2008] VSCA 122 Maules Creek Coal Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority [2023] NSWCCA 275 McCullum v Ifield [1969] 2 NSWR 329 McGuire v Secretary for Justice [2019] 1 NZLR 335; [2018] NZSC 116 McIlraith v Ilkin (Costs) [2007] NSWSC 1052 New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation v Quinn [2016] NSWCA 338 Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11 Owners of "Shin Kobe Maru" v Empire Shipping Co Inc (1994) 181 CLR 404; [1994] HCA 54 Parsloe v Foy (1833) 2 Dowl 181 Pennington v Russell (No 2) (1883) 4 LR (NSW) Eq 41 Pentelow v Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 150 Ratkovic v Hadzic [2019] NSWSC 1627 Raymond v Lakeman (1865) 34 Beav 584; 55 ER 761 Registrar of Titles v Watson [1954] VLR 111 Riva NSW Pty Limited v Fraser; Fraser v Riva (NSW) (No. 4) [2022] NSWSC 1624 Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 Spencer v Coshott (2021) 106 NSWLR 84; [2021] NSWCA 235 United Petroleum Australia Pty Ltd v Herbert Smith Freehills [2020] VSCA 15 Vickers Cockatoo Dockyard Pty Ltd v El Ali (unreported, New South Wales Court of Appeal, 17 December 1987) Viro v The Queen (1978) 141 CLR 88; [1978] HCA 9 Walton v McBride (1995) 36 NSWLR 440 Westpac Banking Corporation v Bell Group Ltd (in liq) (No 3) (2012) 44 WAR 1; [2012] WASCA 157 Texts Cited: A Summary of the Law and Practice Relating to Attorneys (V&R Stevens, Sons and Hayne, 3rd edn, 1862) Lush's Practice of the Superior Courts of Law at Westminster (Butterworths, 3rd edn, 1865) Category: Principal judgment Parties: John Ljubomir Atanaskovic (First Applicant) Lawson Andrew Jepps (Second Applicant) Birketu Pty Ltd (First Respondent) WIN Corporation Pty Ltd (Second Respondent) Maurice Jocelyn Castagnet (Third Respondent) Representation: Counsel: DFC Thomas SC with D Birch (Applicants) B Walker SC with A Vincent (First and Second Respondents)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate