New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Suncorp Finance v Klego & Ors [2000] NSWSC 1073 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 12930 of 1998 HEARING DATE(S) : 21 November 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 21 November 2000 Suncorp Finance Limited (Plaintiff) v PARTIES : Klego Pty Limited as Trustee for Lamont Family Trust (First Defendant) John Robert Lamont (Second Defendant) Janet Claire Lamont (Third Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Master Malpass COUNSEL : Mr Meek (Plaintiff) N/A Defendants SOLICITORS : Corrs Chambers Westgarth (Plaintiff) Wayne Levick & Associates (Defendants) CATCHWORDS : Indemnity costs - costs order against solicitor LEGISLATION CITED : N/A CASES CITED : N/A DECISION : See paragraph 6 - 7 THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION MASTER MALPASS TUESDAY 21 NOVEMBER 2000 12930/98 - SUNCORP FINANCE LTD v KLEGO PTY LTD (AS TRUSTEE FOR LAMONT FAMILY TRUST) & ORS 1 JUDGMENT MASTER: In this matter I have already made an order that the defendant pay the costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis. Mr Levick is the solicitor for the defendant and has acted for the defendant throughout the proceedings. An order is now sought against him personally in the following terms: "Order that, in relation to the order for indemnity costs made on 4 April 2000, the defendant's solicitor, Wayne Levick, pay to the plaintiff such costs to the extent that the defendants fail to pay such costs within fourteen days after service upon Mr Levick of a certificate of determination of costs." 2 Mr Levick appears today to oppose the application. I am satisfied that he has been given a reasonable opportunity to defend it. He has had the opportunity to put whatever submissions he wishes to make to the Court. Apart from a reference to s 78B, no submissions have been made. The submission that was sought to be put in relation to s 78B was not supported by any evidence which has been received by the Court. 3 This case has similarities to what has occurred in a number of other cases in which Mr Levick has acted. There is now a considerable body of authority that supports the application now made in this case. It is not necessary to embark upon a detailed history of what has happened in these particular proceedings. 4 The history is indeed very long. It suffices to mention that it is another of those cases in which proceedings have been defended by Mr Levick on behalf of his client on an untenable basis. There have been many adjournments. These adjournments and other conduct in the proceedings have had the effect of bringing about substantial delay and substantially increasing the costs that are now payable. 5 In my view I am satisfied that there has been a course of conduct engaged in for the purpose of delaying these proceedings. 6 In the circumstances of this case I am satisfied that I should proceed to make the order sought by the plaintiff. Accordingly, I make that order. I make it in the terms of the handwritten document handed up to the Court by Mr Meek of counsel for the plaintiff. 7 It would have been my understanding that the costs of the proceedings would embrace all costs, but for clarification and to remove any question of doubt, the orders that I have made are to include the costs of and incidental to the application before me today. ********** Last Modified: 12/18/2000 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.