Orsini v Taouk

[2026] NSWSC 621

Supreme Court of NSW

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. COSTS — costs assessment — appeal from costs review panel — associated third party payer — where plaintiff seeks to add defendant — issue estoppel — abuse of process — where cross-appeal out of time

Quick Take

The Court held that a costs review panel's determination under s 199(2)(a) LPUL as to whether a valid costs agreement exists — including the identity of parties liable to pay — is a substantive determination capable of giving rise to issue estoppel, and is not merely an 'anterior or incidental question' within s 93C(3) LPULAA. Accordingly, a solicitor who unsuccessfully argued before a costs assessor and review panel that certain parties were liable as third-party payers was estopped from re-agitating that issue by seeking declaratory relief in the Supreme Court. The Court further held that the solicitor's failure to join a company (Rawson Constructions) that had paid 90% of her fees as a party to the original costs assessment, despite being aware of its central role, constituted an abuse of process precluding its joinder in subsequent Supreme Court proceedings, applying UBS AG v Tyne. The Court left open whether Anshun estoppel can arise from a costs review panel determination, noting complexity about whether such a body's decisions are sufficiently judicial or quasi-judicial in character.