//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] NSWSC 811
Supreme Court of NSW
2026-07-01
Cavanagh J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: Nassif v New South Law Group Pty Ltd t/as New South Lawyers (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 811
Hearing dates: 1 July 2026
Date of orders: 1 July 2026
Decision date: 01 July 2026
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Cavanagh J
Decision: (1) The plaintiff’s motion is dismissed.
(2) The plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs of the motion.
Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — application to stay proceedings — where plaintiff seeks stay in proceedings pending outcome of appeal in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia — whether any basis for granting stay — no issue of principle
Cases Cited: Nassif v New South Law Group Pty Limited t/as New South Lawyers [2026] NSWSC 412
Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Nisserine Nassif (Plaintiff) (self-represented)
New South Law Group Pty Ltd trading as New South Lawyers (First Defendant)
The Manager, Costs Assessment (Second Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
M Castle (First Defendant)
Solicitors:
New South Lawyers (First Defendant)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Second Defendant)
File Number(s): 2025/420950
HIS HONOUR: This matter comes before me in my capacity as Duty Judge on an urgent basis pursuant to a motion filed by the plaintiff, Nisserine Nassif, as plaintiff against New South Law Group trading as New South Lawyers, first defendant, and the Manager, Costs Assessment, second defendant.
The plaintiff appears in person. Ms Castle appears for the first defendant.
The background to the proceedings is that the plaintiff retained the first defendant to act for her in contested family law proceedings. According to the plaintiff, the result of those proceedings was very unsatisfactory in the sense that the plaintiff’s husband, Jean Nassif, ended up doing things which left her without any assets or income and that she is now on Centrelink, applying for Housing Commission property in circumstances in which she has three children to support.
She also says that the conduct of her case by the first defendant was undertaken negligently and, further, that she has reported the first defendant to the Law Society of New South Wales. Nothing I say should indicate acceptance of the validity of any complaint made or the validity of any allegation of negligence against the first defendant.
Subsequent to the first defendant ceasing to act for the plaintiff or the retainer coming to an end, the first defendant sought recovery of its costs. A costs assessment was undertaken. The second defendant provided an extension of time to the first defendant in respect of the undertaking of that costs assessment.
At some point thereafter, the plaintiff issued proceedings in this Court, seeking to challenge the extension of time granted to the defendant to undertake its costs assessment.
The principal issue in the proceedings was determined by Harrison AJA on 21 April 2026. The amended summons was dismissed with costs: see Nassif v New South Law Group Pty Limited t/as New South Lawyers [2026] NSWSC 412.
The defendant then filed a motion seeking an order that the costs order in its favour in these proceedings be assessed and ordered by way of a gross sum costs order. Harrison AJA then made orders setting in place a timetable for the exchange of evidence on that application. That application is due to be determined by his Honour on 3 August 2026.
The plaintiff is in default of the timetable in terms of serving evidence in respect of that application, but Ms Castle says that there will be no difficulty with the plaintiff having an extension of time to provide her evidence.
The reason that the matter comes before me today is that the plaintiff has filed a motion seeking the following orders:
“1 A stay of entire proceedings in Case No. 2025/00420950 pending the determination of the Defendant’s appeal to the Family Court of Australia in Appeal File No. NAA179/2026 listed for hearing on 30 June 2026.
2 In the alternative, a stay of the Defendant’s Notion [sic] of Motion filed 7 May 2026 pending the determination of the Family Court appeal on 30 June 2026.”
The plaintiff thus seeks that I make an order staying these proceedings pending the determination of an appeal being pursued in the Federal Circuit and Family Court arising out of certain orders made in that Court. That appeal was heard on 30 June 2026 and judgment has been reserved.
However, that case is irrelevant to the obligation of the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs. It relates to whether there was a valid charge on certain property on which the defendant might seek to rely.
I asked the plaintiff to outline the reasons why she sought a stay, as set out in her notice of motion. She informed me, in essence, that she has no money; that her husband has left her broke, having to support three children; that she is on Centrelink; and that she has no assets.
She also said that she is being bombarded with litigation in that the defendant is conducting litigation aggressively and she cannot keep up with all the litigation involving her. I asked her whether there were any other grounds on which she sought the stay, and she indicated that there were not.
It is not necessary that I make any determination as to the matters of fact raised by the plaintiff. I do not have evidence before me of those matters. However, I will assume the accuracy of what the plaintiff says, that is, that she is in a financially desperate position; that she has three children to look after; that she cannot cope with all the litigation; and, in essence, that she should not be forced to pay costs when she has made a complaint about the defendant.
It is only necessary to say that none of the matters raised by the plaintiff provide any basis for a stay of these proceedings.
At the moment, all the defendant is seeking to do is obtain an order for the amount of costs which it is said are owed by the plaintiff to the defendant. Nothing raised by the plaintiff suggests that she does not owe some amount to the defendant.
In the end, there is no basis for the orders sought in the motion filed by the plaintiff, and in those circumstances the motion is dismissed. The case will proceed on 3 August 2026. It is up to the plaintiff whether she wishes to serve any evidence in response to the defendant's application for a gross lump sum costs order.
Therefore, the orders I make are:
The plaintiff’s motion is dismissed.
The plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs of the motion.
**********
Nassif
New South Law Group Pty Ltd t/as New South Lawyers (No 2)
[2026] NSWSC 412