Supreme Court rejects court transfer over alleged $1.287m costs dispute

A $1.287 million cross-claim by Cleopatra Calokerinos, alleging breach of contract and professional negligence, exceeded the District Court’s $1.25 million jurisdictional limit, prompting an application to the NSW Supreme Court to transfer proceedings.

The proceedings were commenced by Madison Marcus Law Firm in May 2025 to recover $169,976.61 in legal fees relating to the estate of the late George Sclavos.

Madison Marcus Law Firm consented to the transfer but sought orders requiring Calokerinos to plead her cross-claim as a statement of claim, with the cross-claim to be heard separately from the firm’s claim for unpaid legal fees.

In considering the application under s140(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), the court identified several factors weighing against a transfer, including the relatively small amount by which the cross-claim exceeded the District Court’s monetary limit and the possibility that any excess could be offset, in whole or in part, by the law firm’s claim for legal costs.

The court also noted that the parties had not explored the possibility of consenting to an extension of the District Court’s monetary jurisdiction.

Further, any amount exceeding the jurisdictional limit by reason of interest could still be awarded under s44(2) of the District Court Act 1973 (NSW).

VIEW ALL

Justice Elkaim dismissed claims that the matter’s intricate nature warranted moving it to the Supreme Court.

Justice Elkaim also considered the equity component of the cross-claim, noting that the District Court’s equitable jurisdiction is limited to $100,000, but accepted counsel’s submission that almost all the claim concerned breach of contract and loss of chance.

The court concluded that the proceedings should stay in the District Court, given the potential for the law firm’s costs claim to extinguish any amount exceeding the jurisdictional limit.

It was indicated that had it been necessary to determine the law firm’s application to separate the claims, the request would have been refused.

It was found that separating the claims ultimately risked duplicating issues and extending the hearing, which was the opposite of the overarching purpose of conducting the quicker and cheaper resolution of the real issues in the proceedings.

The summons filed on 20 March 2026 was dismissed, and Calokerinos was ordered to pay the firm’s costs of the summons; however, they are not payable until completion of the proceedings in the District Court.

Citation: Calokerinos v Madison Marcus Law Firm Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1187