BLAKE v NORRIS [SOLICITOR COSTS] [2003] NSWSC 199

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : BLAKE v NORRIS [SOLICITOR COSTS] [2003] NSWSC 199 revised - 13/05/2003 HEARING DATE(S) : 3.7.97; 19.8.98 JUDGMENT DATE : 28 March 2003

JUDGMENT OF : Hulme J at 1 DECISION : See paragraph 35

PARTIES : Paul Jonathan Blake Walter Thomas Norris FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 12242 of 1989 COUNSEL : SOLICITORS : Mr TD Kelly TD Kelly & Co

- 5 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

HULME J Friday, 28 March 2003

12242 of 1989 Paul Jonathan BLAKE by his Tutor Brian Edward PORTER v Walter Thomas Patmore NORRIS JUDGMENT 1 HULME J: In these proceedings I delivered my principal reasons as long ago as 5 December 1995. In them I expressed some tentative views on the question of whether some of the costs incurred on the Plaintiff's side of the record were properly incurred or should be paid by the Plaintiff's legal advisers. These reasons return to that topic. 2 On 11 December 1995 I made formal orders, recorded in a document entitled "Draft Judgment" to give effect to the principal conclusions at which I had arrived. My orders included the following:- "5 Order that the Plaintiff pay the Defendant's costs in relation to the issue of whether damages for future economic loss and future losses should be assessed by the adoption of a discount rate of other than 3%. 6 Order that each party pay its own costs of the hearing on 8 and 11 December 1995. 7 Subject to the preceding orders order that the Defendant pay the Plaintiff's costs, other than the costs incurred by the Plaintiff of and incidental to:- 7.1 Obtaining evidence of South Australian law. 7.2 His claim for the provision of a motor vehicle and for the expenses relating to the cost of running a motor vehicle. 7.3 His claim for the provision of housing. 7.4 The preparation of the document comprising pages 300A to V of Exhibit J, and the preparation of the report which became exhibit AW. 7.5 So much of the cost of the reports from Dial-An-Angel dated 15 November 1989, 1 December 1993 and 22 June 1994 as related to the consideration by Mrs Blackman of the comprehensive volume of medical reports, the updated Statement of Particulars and the report of Ms Julie Wilson, and to the provision of such documents to Mrs Blackman." 3 On 11 December 1995, expanding somewhat on the remarks I had published on 5 December, I also recorded my reasons for the orders just quoted and stood over the question of "who should finally bear the costs of the matters referred to in paragraphs 7.1, 7.3, and 7.5". 4 On 3 July 1997, I returned to the matter in more detail. In respect of the topic which I may refer to as South Australian Law, I observed that there had been in the trial issues in respect of which South Australian law was potentially relevant, I repeated observations previously made to the effect that the relevant parts of that law could have been stated in a one or two page document rather than the 5 centimetres thick bundle of paper which was prepared, remarked that $375 charged by a South Australian practitioner for preparation and certification of that bundle did not seem excessive but that there were likely to be costs consequential on the creation of that vast bulk of material. 5 The issues incidental to the topic of the claim for housing costs (paragraph 7.3) fell within a relatively small compass and, in light of how I dealt with that topic on 19 August 1998 (detailed below), I need not canvass it further. 6 On the matters referred to in order 7.5, I concluded that the solicitor should bear the costs associated with, and occasioned by, the furnishing to Mrs Blackman (of Dial-an-Angel) with the solicitor's letter of 1 September 1993 of a large number of medical reports. At least inferentially, I indicated that these costs would be likely to include some portion of a charge of $648 Dial-an-Angel made for its report of 2 November 1993. 7 On 19 August 1998, I again dealt with the matter, observing that it had been re-listed to afford the solicitor an opportunity to indicate whether he would place before me evidence or information which might enable me to make some assessment of the costs involved rather than have the matters referred to a taxing officer for report, no doubt at additional trouble and expense. The solicitor declined to avail himself of the opportunity. I then ordered:- 1. As between the Plaintiff, Paul Jonathan Blake, by his tutor Brian Edward Porter and T D Kelly and Co, Solicitors, I disallow the sum of $1,400 costs charged in respect of the report of Mr J J Newlin-Mazaraki of Bryant, Mazaraki Murphy Pty Limited, dated 24 August 1994.