Muriniti v King

[2019] NSWCA 153

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Appeal
2. › Leave to appeal
3. › Costs orders
4. › Land and Environment Court
5. › Whether leave should be granted
6. › Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), s 58(3)(c)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Costs orders against legal practitioners
4. › Wasted costs
5. › Whether primary judge applied correct test for order under s 99
6. › Whether serious incompetence or serious misconduct established
7. › Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 98, 99
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Apprehended bias
3. › Whether findings not open on evidence supported reasonable apprehension of bias

Quick Take

Pursuing fraud and conspiracy allegations without evidentiary foundation, even on express client instructions, constitutes serious incompetence and serious misconduct warranting costs orders against the legal practitioner under s 99 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), and errors in a primary judge's reasoning do not without more establish apprehended bias.

Case Details

Citation[2019] NSWCA 153

CourtNSWCA

JurisdictionNew South Wales

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members.

Relies on16

2018Young v King (No 13)NSWLEC 150
2018King v MurinitiNSWCA 98
2017Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (No 4)FCA 456
2017Young v King (No 11)NSWLEC 34
and 12 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in