Howell v Rose [2000] NSWSC 934

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Howell v Rose [2000] NSWSC 934 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 11467/2000 HEARING DATE(S) : 5 October 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 13 October 2000

Paul Roch Howell (Plaintiff) PARTIES : John Emmanuel Rose (Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Master Harrison

Mr B Slowgrove (Plaintiff) COUNSEL : Mr M Broun QC with Mr V Bedrossian (Defendant) Dennis & Co (Plaintiff) SOLICITORS : White & Downey (Defendant) CATCHWORDS : Extension of time for application for costs assessment LEGISLATION CITED : Legal Profession Act 1987 (the Act) Legal Profession Regulations 1994 Tsekouras v Xenos (NSWSC, unreported 5 August 1997 Barr J) Hook v Simpsons Solicitors [1999] NSWSC 667 CASES CITED : Ryan v Whitten [1999] NSWSC 865 Brierley v Reeves t/as Kaplan Reeves & Co [2000] NSWSC 305 Selosse v Whitten Graham AJ, unreported 26 August 1997 DECISION : See para 15

8

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

MASTER HARRISON

FRIDAY, 13 OCTOBER 2000

11467/2000 - PAUL ROCH HOWELL v JOHN EMMANUEL ROSE

JUDGMENT (Extension of time for application for costs assessment)

1 MASTER: By amended summons filed 3 July 2000 the plaintiff seeks that his application for assessment of the defendant's bill of costs served 4 February 1998 be determined or alternatively, that the plaintiff be granted an extension of time pursuant to s 199(2) of the Legal Profession Act 1987 (the Act) and of Regulation 25 of the Legal Profession Regulations 1994. The plaintiff relied on two affidavits of Bruce Vernon Dennis sworn 13 June 2000 and 3 July 2000. The defendant relied his affidavit sworn 7 August 2000 and the affidavit of Rachel Lee sworn 8 August 2000. 2 The plaintiff is a former client of the defendant, a solicitor. The defendant acted for the plaintiff in a partnership dispute between the plaintiff and Fine Real Estate Network Pty Limited, Mervyn Fine and Patricia Fine in relation to the buying and selling of a number of properties in the Eastern Suburbs which were to be renovated and sold for a profit. The solicitor acted for the plaintiff in proceedings involving an application to the Supreme Court seeking a declaration as to the parties to the partnership and seeking an account upon dissolution of the partnership. The proceedings were referred to be heard by Mr Reynolds QC as a referee. Subsequently the proceedings came before McClelland CJ in Equity concerning the adoption of the referee's report. 3 There has been a long history of proceedings involving the solicitor recovering his outstanding legal fees in the District Court and this court. In the District Court the solicitor sought to enforce a personal covenant to pay the sum of legal costs. The plaintiff mortgaged his shares in his property at Darling Point in favour of the plaintiff. However, shortly after entering into this transaction the plaintiff sold the property. The client has filed three prior applications seeking to have the bill of costs assessed. These files have been closed by the proper officer. 4 A short chronology, which was helpfully set out by the defendant's counsel, is as follows: