Blog

Rule 21.10 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) sets out the basic position as to how costs are to be dealt with: “Unless the Court otherwise orders, a party entitled to costs in a proceeding (other than a proceeding to which the Bankruptcy Act applies) is entitled to:

By Katie O’Brien: Mirus Australia Pty Ltd v Wilson [2023] NSWSC 1432 (24 November 2023) On the instruction of Kennedys, Rose Legal Costing prepared a review application on behalf of Mirus Australia Pty Ltd (Mirus), the paying party in an ordered costs assessment. The result of this was that the original determination was reduced by

Rose Legal Costing were recently instructed on behalf of a law firm seeking to recover their costs from a client that had gone elsewhere and had refused to pay costs to the law firm. By the time of the assessment, the substantive case had reached a successful outcome. One of the submissions put forward by

Shaw v Niru Construction Pty Ltd & Anor (No.3) [2021] NSWDC 624 The phrase “rule of thumb” is derived from an old English law that stated that you couldn’t beat your wife with anything wider than your thumb. This is, thankfully (according to Wikipedia, which no lawyer worth their salt would ever refer to) just

Background Our instructing solicitor acted for the Defendant in the substantive proceedings seeking judgment for possession of land, as well as leave to issue a Writ of Possession. These proceedings were successfully defended, securing an order for costs on the ordinary basis. We prepared a fully itemised inter partes Bill of Costs on behalf of

Kupang Resources Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1337 8 November 2023 The Commonwealth filed a subsequent application for security (having initially obtained security of $500,000), submitting the threshold issue had been satisfied due to the following factors: – Kupang was under administration until 5 May 2021. – It did not

Rose Legal Costing has successfully acted on behalf of a law firm in a solicitor/client assessment involving a Nominal Defendant. Costs disclosure was not provided to the client meaning costs had to be assessed on a ‘quantum meruit’ basis. In addition, submissions were made on behalf of the client that the law firm had no

Calderbank offers and the indemnity costs order Last week’s case of E Group Security Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1296 shows how difficult it can be in securing indemnity costs even where a party has beaten their own Calderbank offer. Key takeaways: When putting forward a Calderbank offer

Section 198 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (LPUL) stipulates that if a solicitor or client wishes to commence a cost assessment, they must do so within 12 months of the ‘final’ invoice. (Note- this time frame only applies to solicitor/client assessments, not party/party assessments). S 198(4) LPUL enables a client to make an application

Rose Legal Costing (RLC) has successfully set aside the determination of a costs assessor, through the Review Application process, due to a law firm’s failure to comply with their disclosure requirements. RLC received instructions from a lay client who had previously instructed the Review Respondent law firm to act on his behalf in respect of