2025/00197791
| Date | Party | Submission |
|---|---|---|
| 28/7/2025 | Appellant | Notice of Appeal (PDF, 3.6 MB) |
| 28/7/2025 | Appellant | Submissions (PDF, 4.5 MB) |
| 25/8/2025 | Respondent | Submissions (PDF, 5.1 MB) |
| 26/9/2025 | Appellant | Reply (PDF, 762.2 KB) |
COSTS – the primary judge granted a stay over "of operation of orders for costs" and held that there "should be no enforcement of any judgment for costs" between the parties. The applicant contends, however, that the orders which the primary judge stayed were not orders for costs, but constituted the principal judgment in the applicant's favour. The applicant accepts that if it were attempting to enforce the costs assessment, the stay ought to be granted under s 86 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW), which suspends the operation of a first instance costs assessor's determination while the Review Panel conducts its review. However, as the applicant sought to enforce the principal judgment (namely, amounts in garnishee orders for the full putative outstanding amounts of the judgment debts), the applicant argues that this should have engaged a variety of different principles as to whether to grant a stay of the principal judgment, which the primary judge "did not advert to, nor apply". The first respondent argues that the primary judge was well aware that the applicant sought to enforce the principal judgment, but, in the interests of justice, required that "all accounts" between the parties be "brought to finality together". The first respondent also argues that the principles are well accepted and the applicant was given an opportunity to address on these matters, but did not.
Last updated: