Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A long-running costs dispute between a former client and her solicitors returned to the NSW Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of NSW’s Justice Michael Ball dismissed an application brought by Ljiljana Coshott seeking judgment against her former solicitors, Stephen Barry and Martin Board, for costs awarded to her by the NSW Court of Appeal in 2015.
Justice Ball found that the application was “totally misconceived.”
In 2003 and 2004, Barry and Board sought assessment of legal costs owed by Mr and Mrs Coshott, with the process delayed by related alleged professional negligence proceedings that were ultimately dismissed.
In October 2008, certificates awarded $52,670.12 and $28,205.52 in costs, with interest payable but not included, and Mr Coshott subsequently entered bankruptcy on 7 November 2008.
In November 2008, the costs certificates subsequently became judgments in the Local and District Court, and in 2014 the courts rejected Coshott’s attempts to set them aside while ordering additional judgments for interest on the unpaid costs.
In Justice Ball’s judgment, it was noted that on 28 August 2015, Mrs Coshott was partially successful in challenging the district and local court orders, with the Court of Appeal holding that those courts had no authority to award interest on unpaid costs, setting aside the relevant orders, and ordering Barry and Board to pay 50 per cent of her costs in the appeal and judicial review proceedings.
Justice Ball indicated that by the time of the filing of Mrs Coshott’s notice of motion, there were also outstanding costs and liabilities owing to her arising from the earlier proceedings.
“As a consequence, prior to the filing of Mrs Coshott’s notice of motion, she had (in April 2026) obtained a judgment in the Supreme Court for $35,994.00 in respect of the costs order she had obtained in the Court of Appeal in respect of the Appeal Proceedings that were the subject of the 2015 Judgment,” Justice Ball said.
“In addition, the costs assessor has issued an amended costs certificate in the amount of $22,164.03 in respect of costs incurred by her in the Judicial Review Proceeding that was the subject of that judgment.”
The Court found that Coshott’s application was “totally” misconceived.
“Mrs Coshott already had a judgment from the Supreme Court in the amount of $35,944.00, obtained by filing the June 2018 Certificate pursuant to s 368(5) of the 2004 Act,” Justice Ball stated.
“That provision permits a certificate of determination to be filed in a court having jurisdiction to order payment of the relevant amount, at which point any unpaid costs are taken to be a judgment of that court.”
Justice Ball addressed the limits on what could properly be included in such a “deemed” judgment.
“Nor does the relevant Court (in this case, the Supreme Court) have power to amend the judgment by, for example, including an amount for interest.
“There is no authority for the inclusion of any other amount.
“The Court of Appeal also made clear in the 2015 Judgment that it would be a matter for the costs assessor to include interest in his or her determination, and if interest was not included, it could be recovered by an action at law.”
Conclusively, Justice Ball identified the statutory avenue in relation to the amended certificate.
“The only rights Mrs Coshott has in respect of that certificate is to exercise the rights of appeal conferred by Division 11 of the 2004 Act,” Justice Ball said.
“That division permits an aggrieved party to apply for a review of the costs assessor’s determination “within 30 days after the certificate ... has been forwarded to the parties.”
Justice Ball ordered that “the notice of motion filed on 4 June 2026 must be dismissed with costs.”
Citation: Coshott v Barry [2026] NSWSC 1126 (18 September 2026)
