Coshott, a keen litigant, suffered an indemnity costs order against her in favour of solicitors, Mr Barry and Mr Board. They were in partnership at the time relevant to the case pleaded against them, but are now sole practitioners. Since partners are sued separately rather than under the firm name in NSW, it is not entirely clear to me whether they were sued as partners or not. Perhaps it does not matter.
Mr Barry did the solicitors’ work in defending the proceedings for himself and Mr Board, recording his time on the basis that he was charging $360 per hour, of which Mr Board was to pay him $180 per hour. In Coshott v Barry  NSWSC 1435 , Fagan J allowed the full rate on the basis that as to $180 in each hour Mr Barry was effectively self-representing and so was entitled, pursuant to the ‘Chorley exception’ to the indemnity principle, to costs calculated by reference to the fiction that he had hired external lawyers at commercial rates, and as to $180 per hour on the basis he was Mr Board’s solicitor and so Mr Board was entitled to costs in the usual way.
I’m not sure there is anything particularly new about this analysis, but thought I would note it so as to illustrate one application of the rule that solicitor litigants are entitled to costs even though they represent themselves, which is easy to sate, but not always obvious in its application. Usually the costs to which they are entitled are scale costs, but this case was a little different because of the indemnity costs order made.
The Court reminded itself of the caution necessary in assessing costs pursuant to the Chorley exception:
‘In making the assessment I will have regard to the decision in Lawrence v Nikolaidis (2003) 57 NSWLR 355;  NSWCA 129. That requires that in assessing the costs of a solicitor who has acted for himself the court must take care not to allow items which would be irrecoverable if the solicitor and the client were separate, such as time which is in reality spent on the function of giving evidence as witness.’