Peter Adams & Co v Wallace [2002] NSWSC 539

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Peter Adams & Co v Wallace [2002] NSWSC 539 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 10140/2002 HEARING DATE(S) : 12 June 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 20 June 2002

Peter Adams & Company (First Plaintiff)

PARTIES : Adams & Partners (Second Plaintiff)

John Wallace (Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Master Harrison

Mr J DeBerg (Plaintiffs) COUNSEL : Mr M J Heath (Defendant) Adams & Partners (Plaintiffs) SOLICITORS : Brian Muir & Co (Defendant) CATCHWORDS : Appeal decision of costs review panel and costs assessor LEGISLATION CITED : Legal Profession Act 1987 Legal Profession Regulations CASES CITED : N/A DECISION : (1) The appeal is dismissed; (2) The decision of the costs review panel dated 19 December 2001 is affirmed; (3) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs as agreed or assessed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

MASTER HARRISON

THURSDAY, 20 JUNE 2002

10140/2002 - PETER ADAMS & COMPANY & ANOR v JOHN WALLACE

JUDGMENT (Appeal decision of costs review panel and costs assessor) 1 MASTER: By amended summons filed 12 June 2002 the applicant seeks an order that leave be granted to appeal the decision of costs assessor Peter Scammell dated 2 October 2001 and the costs review panel dated 19 December 2001 because the costs assessor erred as a matter of law in determining that the applicants had not satisfied s 175(2)(d) and (e) of the Legal Profession Act 1987 (the Act); that the provisions of s 184(6) were not relevant to his determination; that the costs review panel erred as a matter of law in proceeding to review the determination of the costs assessor without the evidence received by the assessor being before it as required by s 208KC(3); and by not issuing a notice in writing to the applicants to produce the file of the applications as required by s 208KD(1). The applicants relied on two affidavits of Jennifer Fraser sworn 15 January 2002 and 11 June 2002. 2 The plaintiff submitted that the costs review panel did not review the solicitor's file before making their decision and this constitutes an error of law. 3 Section 208KC of the Act states: "General functions of panel in relation to review application