The background to this matter is set out in my judgments of 14 June 2024 [1] and 21 June 2024. [2]
On 21 June 2024 I granted the plaintiff leave to rely on the expert reports served late in the face of the 16 November 2023 guillotine order and ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendants' costs of the plaintiff's motion seeking leave to rely on those reports.
I also directed that the solicitor on the record for the plaintiff, Mr Daniel Russell, show cause why he should not personally meet that costs order and why he should not be directed not to make any charge to the plaintiff in relation to the costs incurred by the plaintiff in relation to the motion seeking leave.
I have now received a further affidavit from Mr Russell made on 26 July 2024 which supplements the evidence he gave in his affidavit of 19 June 2024 and the submissions he made in his document called "Plaintiff's Further Submissions" of 21 June 2024. [3]
I have also received submissions made on behalf of Mr Russell by Mr Corsaro SC.
One important matter that emerged from Mr Russell's 19 June 2024 affidavit is that although each of the four experts in question - Mr Girling, Mr Keato, Mr Ingegneri and Mr Dockrill - were sent letters of retainer only days before the date specified in the 16 November 2023 guillotine order, that is 1 March 2024, they had initially been retained on behalf of the plaintiff much earlier.
In his affidavit of 19 June 2024, Mr Russell gave this evidence about the February 2024 retainer letters:
"a) Although briefing letters were provided to the experts [in late February 2024], these letters served the purpose of encapsulating the Plaintiff's supplementary instructions, including requests to make assumptions, that had already been provided to the experts in discussions with [the Plaintiff's solicitors].
b) The supplementary briefing letters serve only to further articulate the requirements of the experts' original briefs …
c) This step enabled those experts to annex such instructions to their supplementary reports, but those letters were not the origin of the experts' instructions to undertake the work giving rise to their supplementary reports."
Those matters were not apparent to me from the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff in support of its motion seeking leave to rely on the further expert evidence, being two affidavits made by Mr Michael Li, the solicitor with the day to day carriage of the matter for the plaintiff.
That led me to make the comments in my 14 June 2024 judgment as follows: [4]
"What Mr Li did not say in his affidavit, and what emerges from the letters of instruction attached to the reports served since 17 March 2024, is that each of the four experts was retained in the closing days of February 2024; on 22 February for Mr Keato, 28 February for Mr Dockrill, and 29 February for Mr Ingegneri and Mr Girling.
The only 'explanation' given on behalf of the Owners Corporation is in the following paragraphs from Mr Li's affidavit:
'The work I have done for the plaintiff in these proceedings has included, but not been limited to, instructing experts, obtaining and collating documents, arranging for experts to inspect the Property. In addition to the work I have performed in connection with these proceedings, I work on other matters involving other clients.'
And:
'The delays experienced in complying with the court's directions have been caused by: - the issues in the proceedings; the number of experts; the time taken to instruct experts and to arrange and co-ordinate the inspection of the Property including 190 units and common property; the availability of experts; my own competing commitments; and the matters I have set out above.'
Mr Li also said:
'I have undertaken the task of obtaining expert reports as quickly as possible. The Plaintiff has now served all expert reports, except the supplementary report by Simon Ingegneri, it intends to rely on in support of its claim in chief. I apologise to the court for the delay in failing to comply with the orders for service of expert evidence.'
Now, by notice of motion filed on 5 June 2024, the Owners Corporation seeks leave to rely on the further reports.
In order to obtain leave to rely on evidence served in the face of a guillotine order, especially one that was consented to, what is required is an adequate, comprehensive, and candid explanation for the failure to comply with the order.
Mr Li's 'explanation' is none of these things.
The explanation is not adequate. Mr Li's reference to unexplained 'competing commitments', a circumstance shared by most members of the legal profession, is far from adequate.
Mr Li's explanation was not comprehensive. There is no explanation given as to why it was only in the last few days of the three and a half month period provided for by the 16 November 2023 order that the experts were retained.
Most troublingly, the explanation was not candid. Mr Li did not reveal that when he said he had 'subsequently' re-engaged the four experts, he meant he had done so in one case five working days before the 1 March 2024 deadline, in another case two working days before the deadline, and in the other two cases on the day before the expiry of that deadline."
Had Mr Li given the explanation for the delay in the further retainer by the plaintiff of its experts in late February 2024 that now appears in Mr Russell's two affidavits, I would have qualified what I said in the last two of those paragraphs.
In that regard, Mr Corsaro on behalf of Mr Russell submitted that:
1. the submissions for the 14 June 2024 hearing were not prepared by Mr Russell;
2. Mr Li's affidavit supporting the plaintiff's motion for leave to rely upon the further expert evidence was not prepared by Mr Russell; and
3. Mr Russell was not in court that day.
In his affidavits of 19 June and 26 July 2024, Mr Russell has now given a comprehensive explanation of the circumstances that led to the delayed service of the four expert reports.
To some extent, that explanation is different than that offered by Mr Li on 14 June 2024.
Thus, in his 19 June 2024 affidavit, Mr Russell deposed:
"It is my considered opinion that Mr Li's contributions to the progressing of this matter on the Plaintiff's behalf did not contribute to the delay in the Plaintiff complying with the Court's directions. In my opinion, despite Mr Li's evidence, Mr Li's 'competing commitments' were not a relevant factor contributing to the Plaintiff's delay in complying with the Court's orders."
That evidence may be contrasted with that given by Mr Li as I set out at [11] of my 14 June 2024 judgment.
Further, Mr Russell, in his 26 July 2024 affidavit, withdrew a number of the submissions he made in the "Plaintiff's Further Submissions" document of 21 June 2024, to which I have referred. I accept that Mr Russell had a very short time to prepare the latter document.
Looking at the matter more widely, I am satisfied from the further evidence of Mr Russell that, to a large extent, the cause of the delay in the service by the plaintiff of its expert evidence was an underestimation by the experts of the time that they would need to complete their work. Mr Russell's evidence shows that he and his firm's staff spent considerable time in December 2023 and in January and February 2024 dealing with the experts.
I see substance in Mr Russell's opinion that:
"… the deadline of the 'guillotine' order, which the experts had all confirmed they could comply with prior to the plaintiff consenting to it, was reasonable (given that the bulk of the subject evidence was served in compliance with it), however was likely based on an optimistic view from Messrs Keato, Ingegneri and Dockrill on their availability and ability to work on the matter. In my review of what has occurred, it is clear to me that these experts would always have required more time."
In his affidavit, Mr Russell gave detailed evidence in relation to the three experts to support that conclusion.
The power to make a costs order against Mr Russell derives from s 99 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).
Section 99 applies if it appears to the Court that costs have been incurred by the serious neglect, serious incompetence or serious misconduct of a legal practitioner, or improperly, or without reasonable cause, in circumstances in which a legal practitioner is responsible.
In those circumstances, after giving the legal practitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard, the Court may, amongst other things, disallow the whole or part of the costs of the proceedings, or order the legal practitioner, in this case a solicitor, to pay to the client the whole or any part of any costs that the client has been ordered to pay to any other person. [5]
Further, under s 56(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, a party to civil proceedings is under a duty to assist a court to further the overriding purpose of achieving the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in a proceeding and, to that effect, to comply with the court's directions. Under s 56(4) of the Civil Procedure Act, a solicitor representing a party must not cause the party to breach that duty and, by reason of s 56(5), the court may take any failure to comply with those requirements into account when exercising any discretion as to costs.
The Court of Appeal has explained in King v Muriniti [6] that, in deciding whether to make an order under s 99, the court must balance the public interest in maintaining and nurturing a legal profession that provides vigorous representation for litigants in the court on the one hand, and the public interest in the efficient administration of justice in the light of the overriding purpose of achieving the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings on the other.
My impression from Mr Russell's evidence is that steps could have been taken by him, or by his firm's staff, to engage more expeditiously with the experts to direct their attention to the task of completing their reports within the time specified in the guillotine order of 16 November 2023 and to have earlier ascertained that they may need further time to complete their tasks.
However, I am satisfied that the delay was not the product of any serious neglect, serious incompetence, or serious misconduct or improper conduct, or conduct without reasonable cause, on the part of Mr Russell.
I am therefore satisfied that this is not a case where any order should be made under s 99 of the Civil Procedure Act.
I also record that Mr Russell has deposed that:
"I am not personally retained by the plaintiff in this matter and have no contractual entitlement to raise a charge against the plaintiff in my own name. The plaintiff's retainer is with the incorporated legal practice Chambers Russell Pty Ltd trading as Chambers Russell Lawyers."
In view of my conclusions, it is not necessary to consider the implications of that evidence.
Finally, Mr Russell also deposed:
"The plaintiff has made no allegations of professional misconduct or negligence against me or Chambers Russell Lawyers. The plaintiff is aware of the Court's orders the subject of this affidavit. I am instructed that the plaintiff supports me in seeking to show cause why the subject orders should not be made."
In the circumstances, the only order I propose to make is that by 5pm on 2 August 2024, the solicitors for the plaintiff provide a copy of these reasons to the members of the strata committee of the plaintiff.
[3]
Endnotes
The Owners - Strata Plan No. 94784 v Mirvac Projects Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 741 ("14 June 2024 judgment").
The Owners - Strata Plan No. 94784 v Mirvac Projects Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 782 ("21 June 2024 judgment").
Referred to at [2] of my 21 June 2024 judgment.
At [10]-[18].
See Civil Procedure Act, ss 99(1), 99(2)(a)(ii) and 99(2)(b)(ii).
[2018] NSWCA 98 at [58] (Emmett AJA).
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 01 August 2024