Case History

In this matter, Greg Walsh acted on a pro bono basis for Simone Harris, the Second Respondent. An application was made by the Applicants for judicial review of a decision of Legal Complaints Review Officer (‘LCRO’) asserting that there was a slip in a decision of the Law Society Standards Committee which should have been corrected by the LCRO. The Second Respondent’s late father, Mr Harris, assisted his daughter in respect of a costs dispute with the Applicants. That dispute was the subject of a referral to a Costs Assessor in respect of twenty bills which totalled $52,958.50. The Assessor in his report included GST (the GST error). He recommended that the total fee was fair and reasonable for the work performed. On 25 May 2021, the LCRO sent the Assessor’s report to the Applicants with a notice of hearing, setting the matter down on 7 July 2021. Submissions were provided. The Applicants did not notice the GST error in the Assessor’s report. The Applicants contended that this was an oversight on their behalf. On 30 May 2021, the Second Respondent made submissions by way of a one page letter from her father, the late Mr Harris, accepting the findings

In this matter Greg Walsh acted for AW and others in respect of an application for costs arising from an action for malicious prosecution, wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. Bell J had entered verdicts in favour of the second and third plaintiffs in AW & Ors v State of New South Wales [2005] NSWSC 543. The application for costs was complicated having regard to the fact that the first plaintiff was unsuccessful in his claim based upon malicious prosecution. The State of New South Wales submitted that the second and third plaintiffs ought not to obtain an order costs. It was contended that the proceedings fell within the jurisdictional limit of the District Court and that the plaintiffs had not established that there was sufficient reasons for commencing or continuing them in the Supreme Court. The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 did not contain a similar provision to the part 52A r33 of the Supreme Court Rules. Bell J considered that this was an important discretionary matter to be taken into account and her Honour held that there was sufficient reason for commencing and continuing the claims in the Supreme Court. The allegations made in support of the claims were

In this matter Greg Walsh represented Dr Rapson and his wife in respect of an action for a permanent stay of proceedings arising from the charging of Dr Rapson and his wife in respect of an incident in respect of a dressage horse, such charges having been initiated by a police officer and others alleging that they had ill-treated the dressage horse just prior to it having completed in a dressage event at Sutherland. Hamilton J found for the plaintiff and declared that the charges and the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process and stayed the proceedings. Greg Walsh also represented plaintiffs in respect of obtaining orders for prohibition arising from a Magistrate’s refusal to disqualify himself for bias.

In this matter Greg Walsh represented the successful plaintiff’s in respect of a variation order made by Hamilton J permanently staying the proceedings so as to enable the proceedings in the Local Court to be withdrawn and dismissed. Such an application arose from a refusal on the part of the Magistrate at Sutherland to in fact dismiss the criminal charges in respect of the plaintiffs.

In this matter Greg Walsh represented Mr Pelechowski arising from his conviction and sentence for contempt by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. Mr Walsh appeared on a pro bono basis and obtained bail from Gummow J in the High Court of Australia. Mr Walsh also appeared in the successful appeal which raised important issues as to the power of the District Court Judge to make a Mareeba Order. The High Court held that that judge did not have the power to make the order that gave rise to the contempt proceedings in the Court of Appeal.

In this matter Greg Walsh represented the plaintiff in an application to the Supreme Court seeking relief arising from a decision by a Magistrate that he had no power to award costs arising from the dismissal of charges at a committal hearing. The Magistrate had ruled that he was functus offico at the time that the application for costs was made. Hidden J held that this was not the case and that the Magistrate had the power to award costs.

In this matter Greg Walsh represented the plaintiff in an application to the Supreme Court seeking relief arising from a decision by a Magistrate that he had no power to award costs arising from the dismissal of charges at a committal hearing. The Magistrate had ruled that he was functus offico at the time that the application for costs was made. Hidden J held that this was not the case and that the Magistrate had the power to award costs.

In this matter Greg Walsh represented the appellant who sought a declaration that a Children’s Court Magistrate had denied the plaintiff natural justice by ruling that cross-examination of witnesses by the parties legal representatives be restricted to 30 minutes. Black AJ granted a declaration that the Magistrate denied the plaintiff procedural fairness by ruling that cross-examination be restricted.