The Court held that UCPR r 36.15 cannot be used to challenge the merits or correctness of a costs assessor's determination underlying a judgment entered on a filed costs certificate; the rule's focus is on irregularity in the steps by which the judgment itself was entered. The Court distinguished Arnold v Forsythe and Violi v Commonwealth Bank as cases involving procedural defects in the steps leading to entry of judgment (defective pleadings, defective service), rather than challenges to the substance of an anterior decision. A costs determination remains binding under s 73 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW) unless challenged through the statutory review or appeal mechanisms, and r 36.15 does not provide an alternative avenue to set aside the underlying certificates.
The full text is available to signed-in members.