Background
Nisserine Nassif had unsuccessfully sought to set aside a costs assessor’s decision extending the time for New South Lawyers to seek assessment of costs incurred while acting for her in Family Court proceedings. The Court dismissed that earlier proceeding with costs in favour of the firm.
New South Lawyers then sought a specified gross sum costs order under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. It claimed $51,286.51 across bills relating to the original proceeding and an unsuccessful stay application brought by Ms Nassif. Ms Nassif, self-represented, argued that the claim involved unnecessary work and duplication between counsel. After the hearing, trustees were appointed to her bankrupt estate; this removed any utility from her request to pay by instalments, but did not affect the costs-quantification application.
The Court’s Holding
Harrison AJ ordered Ms Nassif to pay New South Lawyers $42,250 as a specified gross sum for costs. The Court held that a lump-sum order was appropriate because a formal costs assessment would create further expense, delay and aggravation without a reasonable prospect of producing a better result for Ms Nassif.
The Court accepted that the firm could recover costs of work performed by its employed solicitors. Its director was not claiming fees for his own work, so the rule against a self-represented lawyer recovering professional costs did not prevent recovery. The Court found the claimed rates were within the applicable non-binding costs guideline and that the material did not demonstrate unreasonable duplication or plainly irrecoverable costs. Applying the required broad-brush assessment and an overall discount, it fixed the recoverable sum below the amount claimed.
Key Takeaways
- A court may fix costs as a specified gross sum where a formal assessment would be inefficient and disproportionate.
- An incorporated law practice may recover the cost of work performed by employed solicitors, where its director does not claim for their own work.
- Objections alleging duplicated legal work require a demonstrated basis; broad assertions did not displace the firm’s costs material here.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Supreme Court’s willingness to use lump-sum costs orders to bring costs disputes to an end, particularly where further assessment litigation is unlikely to improve the paying party’s position. It also confirms the practical distinction between recoverable employed-solicitor costs and non-recoverable claims by a lawyer-party for their own professional work.