Tu v Lu [2006] NSWLC 30

Local Court of New South Wales

CITATION: Tu v Lu [2006] NSWLC 30 JURISDICTION: Civil Thi Ha Tu PARTIES: Nga Lu Elena Perla t/as Perla & Jordan lawyers FILE NUMBER: 1832/04 PLACE OF HEARING: Downing Centre Local Court DATE OF DECISION: 07/31/2006 MAGISTRATE: Magsitrate B A Lulham CATCHWORDS: Practice and procedure - Commencement of proceedings - Requirement for plaintiff to authorize proceedings - Challenge to retainer of solicitor - Costs - Award of costs on a party/party or indemnity basis - consideration of authorities LEGISLATION CITED: A.W. & L.M. Forest Pty Ltd v Beamish (1998) 146 FLR 450 Harry S Braggs Liquidation Warehouse Pty Ltd v Whittaker 44 NSWLR 421 CASES CITED: Rancloud v Caban NSWSC Young J 9/2/88 Yonge v toynbee (1910) 1 kb 215 Australian Guangzhou Association Inc v Huang & Ors (2001) NSWSC 124 Zimmerman Holdings Pty Ltd v Wales (2002) NSWSC 447 No appaerance - Solicitor Mr J Sheller - Defendant's Counsel REPRESENTATION: DGB Lawyers - Defendant's Solicitor Mr P Doyle Gray - Respondent's Counsel Henry davis York - Respondent's Solicitor ORDERS: The Statement of Liquidated Claim filed 17 February 2004 is dismissed pursuant to pt 14, r28.1C of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. The respondent is to pay the Defendant's costs and disbursments of the proceedings on an indemnity basis. Such costs are to be as agreed, or in default of agreement within 28 days to be assessed under the Legal Profession Act. The respondent is to pay the defendant's costs and disbursements of the Motion on an indemnity basis. The costs are to be as agreed or in default of agreement within 28 days to be assessed under the Legal Profession Act. In relation to the costs of the proceedings I confirm my view that there appears to have been little work done in the proceedings after the Callover on 20 December 2004. In relation to the costs of the motion such costs will commence from 20 May 2005 when the Motion before the Court on 31 March 2006 was filed. It appears to me that no order was made in relation to the Motion filed on 24 December 2004. It appears to have been superseded by the Motion filed on 20 May 2005. In my view the Motion was inappropriately drawn and an appropriate order would be that each party is to pay its own costs in relation to that Motion, which I formally dismiss.