NSW Caselaw
Industrial Court of New South Wales
CITATION: Piriz v AAPT Limited (No 3) [2006] NSWIRComm 117
APPLICANT Eduardo Piriz PARTIES: RESPONDENT AAPT Limited
FILE NUMBER(S): IRC 2687 of 2002
CORAM: Staff J
Costs - Statutory power to order costs against legal practitioner - Were costs "wasted by undue delay or by any other misconduct or default" - Was legal practitioner responsible - Discussion - Costs order discretionary - Caution urged - Not a clear case - Industrial Relations Commission Rules, r 209 CATCHWORDS: Legal Practitioners - Statutory power to order costs against practitioner - Were costs "wasted by undue delay or by any other misconduct or default" - Was legal practitioner responsible - Discussion - Costs order discretionary - Caution urged - Not a clear case - Industrial Relations Commission Rules, r 209
LEGISLATION CITED: Industrial Relations Act 1996 Industrial Relations Commission Rules 1996
Harley v McDonald [2001] 2 AC 678 Leicester v Walton (NSWCA, 22 November 1995, unreported, Priestly, Sheller and Cole JJA, BC9501770) CASES CITED: Lemoto v Able Technical Pty Ltd and Others (2005) 63 NSWLR 300 Piriz v AAPT Limited (No 2) [2006] NSWIRComm 75 Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205
HEARING DATES: 17/03/2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/05/2006
APPLICANT LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Mr N J Beaumont of counsel Solicitor: Mr P Hayward Haywards Solicitors
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