The price of tenacity in the pursuit of costs

It all started in 2021, when a judge of the NSW Supreme Court made orders certifying a receiver’s accounts.

Explicit in those orders was a carve out to ensure the court’s imprimatur did not extend to certain “professional fees” and “photocopying charges” billed by Sydney lawyer Farshad Amirbeaggi.

“According to Mr Bumble in Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist, “the law is an ass”. When dealing with appeals against costs assessments, the better analogy is of a dog chasing its tail – an exercise that necessarily adds to the costs in issue, and from which a satisfactory outcome is usually beyond reach.” Judge Stephen Rothman.

In making the orders back on June 25, 2021 NSW Supreme Court judge Ashley Black referred to the disputed status of invoices issued by Amirbeaggi’s firm Yates Beaggi for work performed for O’Brien Palmer’s Daniel Frisken, who’d engaged Yates Beaggi in his capacity as receiver and manager of the ultimately dysfunctional property development partnership between Hebbel Constructions and Bitar Pty Ltd.

More than four years have passed since Frisken retired from the appointment. Yet following an unsatisfactory outcome at the Costs Review Panel in February last year which followed an unacceptable costs assessment in August 2022, Frisken and Amirbeaggi last year turned to the NSW Supreme Court seeking leave to appeal.

The defendants in this revolving door litigation – Hebbel and Bitar – opposed any such thing. But if leave were to be allowed then they sought an order that first plaintiff Frisken and second plaintiff ACN 640543979 Pty Limited – Amirbeaggi’s non-trading shell which is separate to the profitable corporate entity operating Yates Beaggi now – stump up security for costs.

In Frisken v Bitar Pty Limited [2026] NSWSC 10 judge Stephen Rothman declared what he thought of the tenacious pursuit of disputed costs in the introductory of his January 28, 2026 judgement.

“The Court is dealing with motions associated with an appeal to the Court against a costs assessment,” he began.

“According to Mr Bumble in Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist, “the law is an ass”.

“When dealing with appeals against costs assessments, the better analogy is of a dog chasing its tail – an exercise that necessarily adds to the costs in issue, and from which a satisfactory outcome is usually beyond reach.”

Frisken and Amirbeaggi had 14 days from January 28 to deposit $50,000 into court to comply with the security for costs order. Until then the appeal’s stayed.

Here at iNO we hope it proceeds. Those photocopying charges will benefit from illumination. As will the size of any adverse costs order should the appellants fail.