Re The Black Stump Enterprises Pty Ltd and Associated Companies (No 2)

[2006] NSWCA 60

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Solicitors' liability for costs
4. › Wasted costs orders
5. › Whether solicitor should personally pay costs of hopeless appeal
6. › Whether appeal result of solicitor's or client's decision
7. › Sophisticated clients
8. › Uniform Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 99
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Solicitors' liability for costs
4. › Legal professional privilege as barrier to full disclosure
5. › Difficulty of determining whether solicitor or client responsible for proceedings

Quick Take

Where clients are sophisticated (such as professional liquidators), a court will find it difficult to infer that a solicitor was responsible for bringing a hopeless appeal, and the wasted costs jurisdiction under s 99 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Act 2005 is unlikely to be exercised. The sophistication of the client is a material factor in determining whether the solicitor or the client was the real cause of the proceedings. The Court signalled that wasted costs orders are more likely where unsophisticated clients have relied on bad solicitor advice.