NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION: Leon Nikolaidis v Legal Services Commissioner [2007] NSWCA 130 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S): 12 September 2006
JUDGMENT DATE: 8 June 2007
JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Hodgson JA at 90; McColl JA at 95
DECISION: (1) Appeal allowed.; (2) Set aside the finding of the Tribunal made on 1 November 2004 that the second complaint was established and that the conduct complained of amounts to professional misconduct.; (3) Set aside the orders made by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal on 25 August 2005 in respect of the second complaint.; (4) Dismiss Ground 2 of the Information.; (5) Respondent to pay the costs of the appeal.
CATCHWORDS: EVIDENCE – expert witness report – rejection of evidence – independent assessment of fair and reasonable costs pursuant to Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) – instructions by practitioner to expert regarding assumptions to be made in determining costs – whether Administrative Decisions Tribunal erred in rejecting expert witness report - LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) – certificate by Costs Review Panel as to fair and reasonable costs pursuant to Part 11 – determination of professional misconduct pursuant to Part 10 of the Act – s 208KF costs certificate not binding in disciplinary proceedings – costs certificate issued under Part 11 not determinative of what was fair and reasonable for purposes of professional misconduct - LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) – professional misconduct pursuant to Part 10 of the Act – whether costs 'grossly excessive' is to be determined by evidence and the Administrative Decisions Tribunal may invoke its own professional experience - LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) s 208Q – professional misconduct – deliberate charging of grossly excessive amounts of costs – requirement that practitioner personally implicated in either knowingly overcharging or was reckless as to whether or not excessive costs had been charged – whether Administrative Decisions Tribunal erred in finding practitioner guilty of professional misconduct
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate