Update: now reported at (2007) 237 ALR 802
This little problem gives rise to ridiculous complexities. In Cannon Street Pty Ltd v Karedis  QCA 541, the Queensland Court of Appeal upheld Justice White’s decision to allow, as party party costs, work done for the successful party by Clayton Utz Sydney in relation to trial of the matter in the Supreme Court of Queensland, despite a parochial provision in the local Supreme Court Act, 1995 (s. 209) which said “A person who is not a barrister or solicitor of the Supreme Court shall not be entitled to claim or recover or receive directly or indirectly a sum of money or other remuneration for appearing or acting on behalf of another person in the Supreme Court”. That the Court had been exercising federal jurisdiction seems to have been significant. I have only glanced at the decision. Another recent case to consider similar issues is Santos Ltd v Delhi Petroleum Pty Ltd  SASC 242.
- What does ‘pro bono’ mean? Are ‘semi-pro bono’ costs agreements legally efficacious?
- Problems abound when one spouse’s solicitor conveys matrimonial property by order of the Court
- Plaintiff’s barrister restrained from acting after communicating directly with defendant
- Can you piggy-back the taxation of an old interim bill onto a taxation of a fresh final bill?
- Costs recovery in pro bono cases in Victorian state courts: Part 3