Muriniti v King; Newell v Hemmings [2019] NSWCA 232 (02 October 2019) (Payne JA at [1]; McCallum JA at [44]; Simpson AJA at [45]) - 13wentworthselbornechambers
17056
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-17056,single-format-standard,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode-child-theme-ver-1.0.0,qode-theme-ver-16.8,qode-theme-bridge,disabled_footer_top,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.5.2,vc_responsive
 

Muriniti v King; Newell v Hemmings [2019] NSWCA 232 (02 October 2019) (Payne JA at [1]; McCallum JA at [44]; Simpson AJA at [45])


Catchwords:


APPEALS – applications for leave to appeal from personal costs orders against lawyers – whether necessary for Lawcover to be joined to the proceedings for the purposes of having the summonses seeking leave to appeal dismissed – where Lawcover had determined that it would not appeal the personal costs orders – where the Court had held that Lawcover was contractually entitled so to conclude – where applicants were permanently restrained from taking any steps to conduct or prosecute an appeal – where applicants have frustrated Lawcover’s reasonable and proper attempts to bring the applications to an end – Lawcover joined – summonses seeking leave to appeal dismissed