GATES and ANOR (trading as ELIAS GATES & ASSOCIATES) v STRANGE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL POWELL and COLE JJA 20 October 1997 [1997] NSWCA 120 Powell JA There is before the Court this morning a Summons in which the Claimants, who were the former solicitors to the Opponent, seek leave to appeal from the decision of Master Malpass on an appeal from a determination made by a Costs Assessor in respect of a Bill of Costs which had been rendered by the Claimants to the Opponent. The Bill of Costs related to work which the Claimants claimed to have done for the Opponent in respect of certain proceedings seeking to recover damages for personal injury in respect of which proceedings the Claimants had been retained by the Opponent. In the event, by reason of the Claimants' negligence, those proceedings were not commenced in time, and although leave to extend that time was granted by the District Court, an appeal from that decision was later upheld by this Court. Thereafter the Opponent brought certain proceedings against the Claimants, claiming damages for professional negligence, which proceedings, so we have been informed, were compromised. It would seem that the view of the Costs Assessor to whom the Claimants' Bill of Costs was referred was that the work in respect of which the Claimants said they were entitled to recover proved to be, in the circumstances, of no value whatsoever to the Opponent and he accordingly brought in an assessment in a sum of nil dollars. The Claimants then sought to have that assessment reviewed and as it would seem, raised a number of grounds in respect of that application for a review. One at least of those grounds has now been abandoned, and the bases on which the Claimants now seek leave to appeal appear to be first, that the Costs Assessor did not provide reasons for his assessment; and, second, that there were some, at least, of the costs or expenses included in the Bill of Costs which, on proper examination, would have proved their value to the Opponent. So far as the first question is concerned, the Master was of the view that the Costs Assessor was not required to give reasons. We are aware that that is a question upon which differing views have been expressed within the Court and we have, in fact, earlier today given leave to appeal so that that question may be resolved. In the event, however, it appears to us that, whether or not a Costs Assessor is required to give reasons, the matter was fully debated before the Master upon the grounds that the basis for the Assessor's determination was that to which I have earlier referred. Our assessment of the material which has been put before us would suggest that it would be quite purposeless to grant leave as the basis upon which the Costs Assessor proceeded, or appears to have proceeded, appears to be correct. The Order of the Court is that the Summons be dismissed with costs. Summons be dismissed with costs.