Ruling says funds may not be recoverable if released from lawyers’ trust account
The New South Wales Supreme Court’s Court of Appeal has granted a stay pending a judicial review of a District Court judgment on the applicant’s appeal against a Costs Review Panel assessment under s 89 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW).
Judge Robert Weber of the NSW District Court issued the judgment on 5 December 2025 and subsequent orders on 12 December 2025.
The applicant in Malouf v Mavrakis t/as Mavrakis & Associates Lawyers [2026] NSWCA 113 could not appeal, as no further appeal lay to the NSW Supreme Court’s appeal court from a District Court judgment arising from an appeal against a cost assessment.
On 13 March 2026, the applicant filed a summons seeking a judicial review of the District Court judgment. The applicant sought to stay Weber’s orders 1, 2, and 3 made on 12 December 2025, as amended on 13 February 2026, which set aside the review panel’s:
The applicant also requested a stay of Weber’s 5 March 2026 cost order.
In its orders, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales stayed Judge Weber’s 5 March 2026 cost order and orders 1, 2, and 3 made on 12 December 2025, as amended on 13 February 2026, until the determination of the proceedings.
The appeal court made these orders conditional upon the applicant’s prosecution of the matter with all deliberate speed and dispatch.
The appeal court acknowledged the respondent’s entitlement to the fruits of Weber’s cost order. However, the appeal court deemed this an appropriate case to stay the orders for the following reasons.
First, the appeal court ruled that the judicial review application appeared on its face to raise serious questions regarding the appropriate interpretation of ss 174 and 178 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) and clause 2 of schedule 1 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act.
Second, the appeal court noted that:
Third, without the full disclosure of the respondent’s assets and liabilities, the appeal court saw an apparent risk that the applicant would not be able to recover $160,000 in funds held in the respondent’s lawyers’ trust account if released to the respondent, which appeared to be significantly mortgaged.
Fourth, the appeal court considered that the stay period would be relatively short.
