Malouf v Jazairy [2006] NSWSC 468

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Malouf v Jazairy [2006] NSWSC 468

HEARING DATE(S) : 12 May 2006

JUDGMENT DATE : 25 May 2006

JURISDICTION : Common Law

JUDGMENT OF : Associate Justice Harrison

DECISION : (1) The decision is remitted to the Costs Review Panel to redetermine applications 92001/2001 and 92004/2001; (2) Each party is to pay its/their own costs.

CATCHWORDS : Further appeal of Costs Review Panel's decision

Legal Profession Act 1987 - 208D LEGISLATION CITED : Legal Profession Act 2004 - s 384(2) Supreme Court Act 1970 - s69

CASES CITED : Haifa Jazairy v Gerard Francis Malouf t/as Gerard Malouf & Partners [2005] NSWSC 808

PARTIES : Gerard Francis Malouf t/as Gerard Malouf & Partners v Haifa Jazairy

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 11357/2006

Ms Cochrane (Plaintiff) COUNSEL : Mr Horsley (Defendant)

Gerard Malouf & Partners SOLICITORS : (Plaintiff)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HARRISON

WEDNESDAY, 31 MAY 2006

11357/2006 - gerard francis malouf t/as gerard malouf & PARTNERS v HAIFA JAZAIRY

JUDGMENT (Further appeal of Costs Review Panel's decision) 1 HER HONOUR: By summons filed 23 March 2006 the plaintiff seeks firstly, an order setting aside the amended statement of reasons and amended certificate of determination of costs of the Costs Review Panel dated 28 February 2006 in matter 92001/2001 (the first decision); secondly, an order setting aside the amended statement of reasons and amended certificate of determination of costs of the Costs Review Panel dated 28 February 2006 in matter 92004/2001 (the second decision); thirdly, in the alternative, a declaration that the first and second decisions are void and of no effect; and fourthly, in the alternative an order that the first and second decision be quashed. The plaintiff is Gerard Francis Malouf t/as Gerard Malouf & Partners. The defendant is Haifa Jazairy. For convenience, I shall refer to Gerard Malouf as the solicitor and Haifa Jazairy as the client, in this judgment. 2 This litigation has had an unfortunate history. There has been a determination of a Costs Assessor, a determination by the Costs Review Panel, an appeal to this court and a redetermination of the Costs Review Panel, an appeal from the redetermination of the Costs Review Panel, a further redetermination by the Costs Review Panel and a further appeal.