Full Federal Court explains its Rules’ wasted costs jurisdiction

In Macteldir Pty Limited v Roskov [2007] FCAFC 49, the subject of the last post but one, the Full Federal Court explained the ambit of Order 62 rule 9 of the Federal Court Rules (which is reproduced in the previous post):

The Relevant Principles
[56] The parties generally accepted as correct the statements of principle found in Levick v Commissioner of Taxation (2000) 102 FCR 155 at [43] and [44]. Thus, in a claim under O 62 r 9, it is necessary for a client to demonstrate a serious dereliction of duty by the legal practitioner or a failure on the part of the legal practitioner to fulfil a duty owed to the Court to aid in promoting, in the practitioner’s own sphere, the cause of justice. It will often be difficult for a court to know all of the details and circumstances of a legal practitioner’s instructions. Further, the Court must be concerned about the risk of a practice developing whereby legal practitioners endeavour to brow beat their opponents into aban-doning clients, or particular issues or arguments, for fear of a personal costs order being made. Continue reading “Full Federal Court explains its Rules’ wasted costs jurisdiction”

Unrepresented barristers’ entitlement to costs in cases involving them personally

In Winn v GHB [2007] VSC 360, a barrister was personally a party in some litigation. She was admitted in Victoria but at the relevant time was practising in Brisbane under a Queensland practising certificate. She taxed her solicitors’ fees, and acted for herself. She appealed successfully from the order of the Taxing Master. She successfully sought an order for costs, but the only costs she was entitled to were costs of travelling to and from Victoria from Queensland for the hearings because the exception to the rule that unrepresented litigants are not entitled to costs except for out of pocket expenses applies only to solicitors and does not extend to barristers. Continue reading “Unrepresented barristers’ entitlement to costs in cases involving them personally”

Advocates’ immunity and the wasted costs jurisdiction

In Macteldir Pty Limited v Roskov [2007] FCAFC 49, my old firm Middletons convinced a unanimous Full Federal Court to pronounce sternly that advocates’ immunity may not be circumvented by a client seeking to invoke the wasted costs jurisdiction of the Court against its own former lawyers, and to re-emphasise emphatically that the wasted costs jurisdiction is only to be exercised in the case of something akin to abuse of process, and certainly not merely negligent conduct.

The plaintiff sued its former solicitors and counsel, asking for an order that it did not have to pay its lawyers’ fees and that the lawyers pay the client some of the costs the client was ordered to pay the other side in the proceedings. In this post I suggest by way of additional note that the High Court has pronounced emphatically that lawyers are immune from suits which claim ‘wasted costs’, that is, a claim that the client incurred unnecessary expense by taking an unnecessary step, or that a costs order was made against the client in favour of the other side as a result of poor advocacy. Anyone have a contrary view? Continue reading “Advocates’ immunity and the wasted costs jurisdiction”

50,000 page loads

This blog is published with WordPress. While I was watching the waves in Bali, WordPress’s page view counter clicked over 50,000. You looked at this thing on average 225 times a day.  If you want a blog of the same design calibre as this one, let me know, and I’ll put you onto a bloke who will do all the tweaking you need and tell you how to use it. After that, your grandpa could create a blog just like this one. Australia needs more lawyer bloggers.

In Bali

Update, 4 October 2008: Here’s an excellent article on Bali’s resurgent tourism and the environmental challenges it is posing, by The Age‘s Indonesia correspondent, Mark Forbes.

Original post: This barrister is in Bali. So no new posts until the fury of deadlines which will unleash itself on me again on my return on 19 September 2007 abates sufficiently. Sorry about that. I took this photo in the early morning looking into the Sayan Valley near Ubud, in which is to be found what is considered to be one of the world’s best hotels but which is in fact a dreadful place with a great view, with all the charm of a super-luxury voluntary prison camp.

Choice is over-rated. Sometimes it’s good to be told what to do. Here’s how to have a good time in Bali: Continue reading “In Bali”