Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: The Owners – Strata Plan 21702 v Krimbogiannis (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 39 Hearing dates: On papers; 2 February 2015 Decision date: 09 March 2015 Before: Basten JA; Macfarlan JA; Meagher JA Decision: (1)Dismiss the fifth respondent's motion dated 19 December 2014. (2)Dismiss the applicant's application for costs of the motion. Catchwords: COSTS – judicial review proceedings - costs sought by a respondent who submitted to the orders save as to costs – motion filed after costs order issued – respondent did not pursue the motion - applicant applied for the respondent to bear the costs of the motion –motion and application dismissed – warning about legal representatives' duties under s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) when applying to the Court Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56 Cases Cited: The Owners – Strata Plan 21702 v Krimbogiannis [2014] NSWCA 411 Category: Costs Parties: The Owners – Strata Plan No 21702 (Applicant) Arthur Krimbogiannis (First Respondent) Andrew Krimbogiannis (Second Respondent) Connie Krimbogiannis (Third Respondent) District Court of NSW (Fourth Respondent) Fallshaw (Investments) Pty Ltd (Fifth Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr P Glissan (Applicant on the motion/Fifth Respondent) Solicitors: Le Page Lawyers (Applicant) Konstan Lawyers (First to Third Respondents) Crown Solicitor's Office (Fourth Respondent) Blake Lawyers (Applicant on the motion/Fifth Respondent) File Number(s): CA 2013/277696 Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: District Court Citation: The Owners – Strata Plan 21702 v Krimbogiannis [2013] NSWDC 72 Date of Decision: 28 May 2013 Before: Levy DCJ File Number(s): 2012/126027 [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Judgment 1. THE COURT: On 5 December 2014 the Court handed down judgment on an application for judicial review of a decision of the District Court on appeal from the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal: The Owners – Strata Plan 21702 v Krimbogiannis [2014] NSWCA 411. The applicant in the proceedings was the owners' corporation for a building subject to a strata scheme. The first three respondents were (or had been at the time the dispute arose) tenants of premises in the building. The fourth respondent (the proceedings being by way of judicial review and not appeal) was the District Court. The fifth respondent, Fallshaw (Investments) Pty Ltd, was the owner of the unit of which the first-third respondents were tenants. The fifth respondent filed a submitting appearance and took no part in the hearing of the review application in this Court. It appeared but submitted to the making of "all orders sought, and the giving or entry of judgment in respect of all claims made, save as to costs." 2. In disposing of the review proceedings, the Court made orders as to costs between the applicant and the first-third respondents. Nobody sought any order against the fifth respondent, nor did it seek an order against any other party. 3. On 19 December 2014 the fifth respondent filed a notice of motion seeking an order that the applicant pay its costs. The motion was made returnable at 9am on 2 February 2015. The purpose of the listing was to give directions as to the future conduct of the matter. The fifth respondent appeared by counsel. The Court noted that it was now seeking to reopen a matter in which it had taken no part, in order to obtain an order for costs which it did not seek at an appropriate time. The applicant appeared by its solicitor at the directions hearing but took no part in the discussion. At the conclusion of the hearing the Court gave the following direction and recorded a note: (1) Direct that the applicant on the motion, that is the fifth respondent Fallshaw (Investments) Pty Ltd, file any submissions it wishes to make in respect of its application including submissions as to the power and appropriateness of the Court reopening the matter in order to make the orders sought by Monday, 9 February 2015. (2) The Court notes that when it has considered those submissions it will determine what course to take including whether the respondents should be required to file submissions in opposition." 1. On 9 February 2015 counsel for the fifth respondent advised that it did not seek to pursue its motion. 2. On 20 February 2015, the solicitor for the applicant sent an email to the Court seeking an order that the fifth respondent pay its costs of the motion. Given that the solicitor attended at the hearing on 2 February, but made no application at that time, despite the express indication that the matter might be dealt with on the papers without the applicant being invited to respond, there is some irony in the current application. The express purpose of the directions given on 2 February was to avoid the applicant incurring costs unless and until the Court determined there was a real issue to be addressed. It can only be said that an unwarranted application for costs has been met by a further unwarranted application. Both solicitors and counsel should be mindful of their obligations under s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). Use of the words "we are instructed to seek an order" does not exonerate a legal representative from his or her obligations under s 56. 3. The Court makes the following orders: (1) Dismiss the fifth respondent's motion dated 19 December 2014. (2) Dismiss the applicant's application for costs of the motion. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 09 March 2015