Kowalski v Rj Cole & Partners

[2015] SASCFC 35

South Australia Full Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Taxation of costs
4. › Solicitor and client costs
5. › Application to tax bill of costs
6. › Whether application constituted abuse of process
7. › Whether predominant purpose was to deny liability rather than dispute quantum
8. › Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (SA), ss 41, 42
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Abuse of process
3. › Stay of proceedings
4. › Use of proceedings for purpose other than that for which designed
5. › Whether taxation process used to litigate liability rather than quantum
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeals
3. › Interlocutory or final orders
4. › Order staying proceedings as abuse of process
5. › Whether order in the nature of an injunction
6. › Whether permission to appeal required
7. › Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA), s 50
8. › Supreme Court (Civil) Rules 2006 (SA), rr 288, 290
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Vexatious litigants
3. › Permission to file proceedings
4. › Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA), s 39

Quick Take

Section 42 of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (SA) may only be invoked by a person who accepts liability to pay legal costs; it cannot be used to advance arguments that no liability exists. An order staying proceedings as an abuse of process is 'in the nature of an injunction' under s 50(5)(c) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) where the very purpose of the order is to prevent the applicant from proceeding, and accordingly an appeal from such an order lies as of right. However, Bampton J's separate reasons characterise such an order as interlocutory, requiring permission to appeal.