Lawrence & Anor v Shaw & Anor [2013] NSWDC 91

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lawrence & Anor v Shaw & Anor [2013] NSWDC 91 Hearing dates: 6 June & 13 June 2013 Decision date: 13 June 2013 Before: Murrell SC DCJ Decision: See paragraphs [42] - [43] Catchwords: CIVIL- appeal against cost assessment - costs review panel - gross sum costs order Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 98(4)(c), 98(1) Legal Profession Act 1994 (NSW), ss 312(2)(iv), 317, 375(3), 382, 384(1), 385 Cases Cited: Sherborne Estate (No 2) (2005) 65 NSWLR 268 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mr Wayne Lawrence (First appellant) Minsden Pty Ltd (Second appellant) Mr James Shaw (Respondent) Lawrence Waterhouse Pty Ltd (Second respondents) Representation: Self represented Mr R D Marshall (Respondent) Harris Wheeler Lawyers (Respondents) File Number(s): DC 2013/152076

Judgment 1The appellants appeal against a determination of the Costs Review Panel (the Panel) that was made on 22 March 2013 and delivered on 3 May 2013. 2The appellants are self-represented by Mr Lawrence. He has represented himself in a number of proceedings that are related to the appeal and he does so with confidence. 3On 6 June 2013 the appeal was fixed for the Court to determine a notice of motion seeking a stay of the Panel's determination. However, the parties agreed that the substantive appeal should be considered because, in order to determine the motion, the Court would need to consider the issues that would determine the appeal itself. 4During the hearing of the appeal, Mr Lawrence was reminded repeatedly that the appeal was confined to errors of law. At one point, he expressed disquiet because he had not appreciated the limited nature of the appeal. He was offered an adjournment so that he could seek legal advice, provided he paid the respondents' costs of the day. He withdrew the application for adjournment. 5On the issue of the costs of the appeal, the respondents' read the affidavit of Ms Ivers and invited the Court to make a gross sum costs order under s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (the CPA). As Mr Lawrence was not in a position to respond to this application, the issue of costs was adjourned to 13 June 2013 to await the outcome of the substantive appeal and to enable Mr Lawrence to make submissions, should that become necessary. 6Following the adjournment, the Court received written submissions from Mr Lawrence dated 13 June 2013. The written submissions were not confined to the application for a gross sum costs order. They canvassed matters that had been the subject of argument on 6 June 2013. Nevertheless, the Court read and considered the submissions. 7The Court also received e-mail correspondence from Mr Lawrence in which he sought a stay of the costs assessment, an order that the amount of the costs assessment be offset against the value of a unit in the name of Lawrence Waterhouse Pty Ltd (the company) as trustee, and orders that various alleged improprieties be referred to various nominated regulatory bodies. These orders were not sought in the summons commencing the appeal.