Mackowiak v Hagipantelis,; Bickhoff v Hagipantelis [2015] NSWSC 1087

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mackowiak v Hagipantelis,; Bickhoff v Hagipantelis [2015] NSWSC 1087 Hearing dates: 9 October 2014 Date of orders: 07 August 2015 Decision date: 07 August 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Garling J Decision: In proceedings 2014/66426, Robert Mackowiak v Lee Hagipantelis:

(1) Order pursuant to s 728(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 ("the Act") that the defendant give to the plaintiff a bill of costs in itemised form in respect of the legal services provided by the defendants to the plaintiff in connection with his claim for damages within 42 days of the date of this order. (2) Pursuant to s 350(5) of the Act, determine that having regard to the delay and the reasons for the delay, that it is just and fair for the Application for Assessment filed on 28 February 2014 (2014/63669) to be dealt with by a costs assessor, notwithstanding the expiration of a 12 month period. (3) Order the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of these proceedings.

In proceedings 2014/69247, Anne Elizabeth Bickhoff v Lee Hagipantelis: (1) Order pursuant to s 728(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 ("the Act") that the defendants give to the plaintiff a bill of costs in itemised form in respect of the legal services provided by the defendant to the plaintiff in connection with his claim for damages within 42 days of the date of this order. (2) Pursuant to s 350(5) of the Act, determine that having regard to the delay and the reasons for the delay, that it is just and fair for the Application for Assessment filed on 28 February 2014 (2014/63626) to be dealt with by a costs assessor, notwithstanding the expiration of a 12 month period. (3) Order the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of these proceedings. Catchwords: COSTS – application for itemised bill of costs from solicitors – s 728 Legal Profession Act 2004 – application for costs assessment under s 350 of the Act – where application made more than 12 months since issue of invoice – where plaintiffs not aware of right to challenge costs earlier – adequate explanation by plaintiffs for lapse in time – no prejudice to defendants if orders made Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Act 2004 Limitation Act 1969 Cases Cited: Beach Petroleum NL v Kennedy (1999) 48 NSWLR 1 Brown v Firth [2013] NSWSC 677 Dale v Firth [2012] NSWSC 1 Dye v Fisher Cartwright Berriman Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 895 Estate of Allwood v Benjafield [2009] NSWSC 1383 Firth v Yang [2014] NSWCA 92 Harvey v Goodman Law Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 340 Law Society of NSW v Foreman [1994] 34 NSWLR 408 Maguire v Makaronis [1997] HCA 23; (1997) 188 CLR 449 Parramatta River Lodge Pty Ltd v Sunman (1991) 5 BPR 12,038 Re Morris Fletcher & Cross' Bills of Costs (1997) 2 Qd R 228 Swane v Marsh (NSWCA 18 October 1978, unreported) Yang v Firth [2013] NSWSC 676 Zizza v Seymour [1976] 2 NSWLR 135 Texts Cited: Equity Doctrines and Remedies 5th Edition, Meagher, Gummow and Lehane Category: Principal judgment Parties: Robert David Mackowiak (P) Anne Elizabeth Bickhoff (P) Lee Hagipantelis and Robert Bryden t/as Brydens Compensation Lawyers (D1 & D2) (both matters) Representation: Counsel: M Castle (P) (both matters) R Sheldon SC / L Friedwald (D) (both matters)