In Tugrul v Tarrants Financial Consultants Pty Limited [No 5]  NSWSC 437, Kunc J, deciding the fifth interlocutory matter in a proceeding, gave a warning to the profession about the need to try hard to resolve interlocutory skirmishes including picking up the telephone. It was a little reminiscent of the Victorian Court of Appeal’s fulmination in Yara Australia Pty Ltd v Oswal  VSCA 337. An applicant for security for costs against individual opponents was ordered to pay the costs of the unsuccessful application forthwith and on an indemnity basis. His Honour’s Nine Commandments were:
- How do these dicta and the requirements of ss 56 and 59 of the CP Act translate into practice when interlocutory issues arise, including such matters as amendments, strike outs, discovery and security for costs? Assuming compliance by the practitioner with the relevant professional conduct rules, nine points may be made by way of general, practical guidance. Nevertheless, the variety of circumstances confronted in practice means that what follows cannot be exhaustive.
- First, it must be emphasised that s 56 of the CP Act and its related provisions are not just pious exhortations to be acknowledged and then ignored. They have real consequences for the clients and lawyers in this Court and are to be applied rigorously in the conduct of all litigation, great or small.
- Second, solicitors and barristers are members of a profession. It is of the essence of a profession that relations between its members are characterised by civility, trust and mutual respect. The Court sees far too much correspondence between lawyers that bears none of those qualities. They must never be abandoned at the behest of clients or in the misguided belief that that is what successful representation of a client requires.
- Third, many interlocutory issues can be solved or at least better understood by a simple telephone call. It has been suggested that some lawyers no longer speak to their opponents on the telephone for fear of being “verballed” in an affidavit. If that is true, then it is a retrograde development which the CP Act gives legislative authority to the profession to reverse.
- Fourth, if one party requires information or an explanation from another, then the request should be reasonable and focused. A clear justification for the request should be given.
- Fifth, faced with a reasonable request, the recipient should not automatically respond with an unthinking denial of legal entitlement to the information. The obligation to facilitate the overriding purpose will sometimes require information or an explanation to be given to which the party may not be “legally” entitled. Furthermore, if it is information which would be required to be produced in response to a subpoena or notice to produce then it is contrary to the s 56 obligations of a party and that party’s lawyers to resist providing it unless and until the Court’s process is invoked. If there is concern for the confidence of such material then an undertaking of the kind considered in Hearne v Street  HCA 36; (2008) 235 CLR 125 (which would apply if the information were provided under compulsion) should be sought and given.
- Sixth, the filing of a motion should be regarded as a last resort. It will inevitably add to costs, and delay the progress of the matter to hearing.
- Seventh, no motion should be filed without the putative respondent being given final, written notice of the relief to be sought, the reason for it and a reasonable opportunity to respond. The Court sees far too many examples of deadlines of a day or less being set in correspondence. My own view, as a rule of thumb, is that three clear business days is reasonable to allow for a response on any matter of substance. If the recipient requires more time to obtain instructions, then they should send a prompt request with an explanation to that effect and an indication of when a proper reply will be provided. In relation to challenges to pleadings it was once the practice for opposing counsel to confer before a strike out motion was filed. To the extent that practice has been lost, it should resurrected.
- Eighth, once a motion is filed, the parties are obliged to ensure that only the real or essential issues are litigated. This calls for discrimination in both the preparation of evidence and argument. As to the former, real thought must be given to the precise evidence required. The practice of exhibiting “everything” or “the file” to provide an evidentiary cornucopia from which only a few morsels are ultimately selected to be referred to in argument is completely unacceptable. Where it becomes apparent that an application or argument is unsustainable, it should be abandoned, and that abandonment notified to the other parties, at the earliest opportunity.
- Ninth, where delay or unnecessary expense has been caused by conduct which is contrary to the obligations of parties and their lawyers under s 56 and its related provisions, parties and lawyers should not be in any doubt that in appropriate cases the Court will exercise its power in relation to costs (see s 56(5) of the CP Act) to provide some measure of justice in response to such conduct.
- Conflict applications to restrain opposing solicitors from acting not interlocutory
- Costs disclosure obligations and consequences of not complying: part 4
- Applicant brings case beyond jurisdiction; respondent doesn’t take the point until the last minute; no one gets costs
- On the desirability of requesting a written progress report
- ‘Snapping on’ judgment in default