The Supreme Court of NSW has thrown out an adjournment application in respect of a “relatively straightforward” motor vehicle accident dispute – with Local Court legal costs ballooning to over $150,000.
The original dispute was brought in 2023 by John Megally against Andja Bojanic in the general division of the NSW Local Court. Though Bojanic accepted liability for negligently causing damage to the plaintiff’s car, a dispute arose as to the fair and reasonable costs of repair.
The plaintiff sought to recover $16,810.42 in damages from Bojanic, after obtaining an independent opinion as to the repair costs. However, Bojanic argued that those repair costs were inflated, and that a fair amount ranged between $5,000 and $8,537.96.
After five days of hearings, Magistrate Rodney Brender agreed with the defendant, and ordered Bojanic to pay $7,941.30 in damages and interest for the accident.
He also ordered that the plaintiff pay 95 percent of Bojanic’s legal costs, which were in the order of $150,000.
Megally appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, requesting a $1,699.69 increase to the damages sum and a challenge to the decision on costs.
Subsequently, he applied for an adjournment. Solicitor for the applicant, Zubin Hiramanek, claimed that the barrister briefed for the appeal was unable to attend the hearing, and that there was insufficient time to prepare a reply to the respondent’s submissions.
Justice Hament Dhanji referred to the “entirely unsatisfactory” events which led to the notice of motion.
He noted that no explanation was given as to why the plaintiff briefed a counsel who was unable to appear at the hearing, nor why Fiona McNeil, the barrister briefed for the adjournment motion, was not herself briefed to pursue the costs dispute.
HH also referred to the fact that the applicant’s submissions were filed and served three weeks later than agreed. The delay meant that the respondent’s lawyers were not able to use their originally planned timeline to respond to the submissions.
Despite facing personal difficulties, the respondent made significant efforts to provide submissions in a timely manner.
Considering the fact that the appellant wasn’t entirely unsuccessful in the original Local Court case, HH queried that “one might ask why it is that the applicant is pursuing an appeal at all” – with rapidly mounting costs for both sides.
In rejecting the adjournment application, HH referred to the fact that providing submissions in reply is not a precondition to an appeal hearing, and that “there is always an element of irreparable prejudice when dealing with delay”.
Oral submissions could have been made had counsel been briefed on the substantive issues of the appeal, instead of solely on the adjournment application.